http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/05/13/chris-hayes-explains-why-citizens-united-is-the-real-scandal-behind-the-irs-scandal/
“Citizen’s United said essentially any organization of any kind can spend money out of its general treasury to run political ads,” Hayes said, “and that decision brought about a pivotal moment for politics and taxes and campaign spending in this country and we’re still dealing with the fallout.”
Republican strategist Karl Rove and Democratic strategist Bill Burton used the Citizens United ruling to their advantage ahead of the 2012 elections. Both used social welfare nonprofits to run overtly political ads, allowing them to intervene in political campaigns without disclosing their donors. Hayes remarked that their example obviously inspired others to do the same.
“Suddenly, the IRS starts getting a flood of new applications from other political groups and strategists saying, ‘Oh, oh, it turns out I too want to set up a social welfare organization that just so happens to be focused on taking the country back from Barack Hussein Obama,’” he said. “Now, here is the thing the IRS appears to have done unequivocally wrong, that we all agree was absolutely inexcusable. They reacted to all this by targeting one part of the ideological spectrum in looking at whether this flood of new applicants passed the smell test. Being skeptical about a new wave of wolves in sheep’s clothing invading the nonprofit game was entirely appropriate.”
The government, under this administration got caught doing something bad. Really Bad. They fessed up to it. But this bitter pill is apparently too much for these hacks to swallow.
I get that there's partisanship on cable news and I'm not expecting them to suddenly demand Obama's head, but this extenuation is downright comical.
Originally posted by sh76Even when they do wrong, it's our fault. The wiring in the liberal brain does not permit the application of logic. It's the only explanation for Obama. I understand the liberal mind. While I disagree with it, I understand its basis. However, the only explanation for conservatism, in their eyes, is mental illness. Talk about a hate-filled group.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/05/13/chris-hayes-explains-why-citizens-united-is-the-real-scandal-behind-the-irs-scandal/
[quote]“Citizen’s United said essentially any organization of any kind can spend money out of its general treasury to run political ads,” Hayes said, “and that decision brought about a pivotal moment for politics and taxes and campaign s ot expecting them to suddenly demand Obama's head, but this extenuation is downright comical.
Originally posted by sh76It seems virtually certain that almost none of the groups targeted deserved tax exempt status as their primary purpose was political and they were not "social welfare organizations" as required by the law:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/05/13/chris-hayes-explains-why-citizens-united-is-the-real-scandal-behind-the-irs-scandal/
[quote]“Citizen’s United said essentially any organization of any kind can spend money out of its general treasury to run political ads,” Hayes said, “and that decision brought about a pivotal moment for politics and taxes and campaign s ot expecting them to suddenly demand Obama's head, but this extenuation is downright comical.
I.R.S. agents are obligated to determine whether a 501(c)(4) group is primarily promoting “social welfare.” While such groups are permitted some election involvement, it cannot be an organization’s primary activity. That judgment does not hinge strictly on the proportion of funds a group spends on campaign ads, but on an amorphous mix of facts and circumstances.
“If you have a thousand volunteer hours and only spend a dollar, but those volunteers are to help a particular candidate, that’s a problem,” Mr. Tobin said.
Agents may examine when and for how long a group advocates policy positions, in part to see whether those positions are associated with a specific candidate, which can be relevant to the group’s tax status, tax lawyers and former I.R.S. officials said.
Agents may look at what a group publishes in print or on a Web site, whether it provides funds to other organizations involved in elections or whether a group’s officers are also employed by political parties. They may also consider other public information, former officials and tax experts said, though they are required to ask the organization to provide those materials or comment on them before the information can be included in an application review.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/27/us/politics/nonprofit-applicants-chafing-at-irs-tested-political-limits.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&ref=internalrevenueservice
I'm beginning to think the whole "scandal" is another "nothing to see here"; a group that has "Tea Party" in its name and raises and spends funds or contributes volunteers to Republican candidates is red flagging itself when it has, at the same time, an application for tax exempt status under 501(c)(4) pending.
31 May 13
Originally posted by sh76Hi Sh,
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/05/13/chris-hayes-explains-why-citizens-united-is-the-real-scandal-behind-the-irs-scandal/
[quote]“Citizen’s United said essentially any organization of any kind can spend money out of its general treasury to run political ads,” Hayes said, “and that decision brought about a pivotal moment for politics and taxes and campaign s ...[text shortened]... ot expecting them to suddenly demand Obama's head, but this extenuation is downright comical.
here in Ireland if we have a referendum, there is a European Court ruling
that the Government must provide information but must not use any
public money to promote one argument over the other. It is called the
McKenna Judgement.
I don't know how the law is in the USA but it seems that political lobbying
is rampant and has always been so. Money is raised by lobby groups to
promote one view over the other and these funds can run into many
many millions of dollars.
What is the legal position? Does your Supreme Court advocate that
public money must not be used to promote one side over the other?
31 May 13
Originally posted by sh76Is this statement by Hayes wrong in any way:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/05/13/chris-hayes-explains-why-citizens-united-is-the-real-scandal-behind-the-irs-scandal/
[quote]“Citizen’s United said essentially any organization of any kind can spend money out of its general treasury to run political ads,” Hayes said, “and that decision brought about a pivotal moment for politics and taxes and campaign s ...[text shortened]... ot expecting them to suddenly demand Obama's head, but this extenuation is downright comical.
“Now, here is the thing the IRS appears to have done unequivocally wrong, that we all agree was absolutely inexcusable. They reacted to all this by targeting one part of the ideological spectrum in looking at whether this flood of new applicants passed the smell test. Being skeptical about a new wave of wolves in sheep’s clothing invading the nonprofit game was entirely appropriate.”
It seems you are doing far more partisan shilling than Hayes is.
31 May 13
Here's a reality check:
But so far no one has identified a single conservative group that was denied status in the controversial review, though some faced bureaucratic hurdles and had their tax-exempt status delayed.
In fact, the only known 501(c)(4) applicant to have its status denied happens to be a progressive group: the Maine chapter of Emerge America, which trains Democratic women to run for office. Although the group did no electoral work, and didn’t participate in independent expenditure campaign activity either, its partisan status apparently disqualified it from being categorized as working for the “common good.”
http://www.salon.com/2013/05/15/meet_the_group_the_irs_actually_revoked_democrats/
31 May 13
Originally posted by no1marauderMax Baucus and Charlie Rangel (Charlie Rangel!) disagree with you.
It seems virtually certain that almost none of the groups targeted deserved tax exempt status as their primary purpose was political and they were not "social welfare organizations" as required by the law:
I.R.S. agents are obligated to determine whether a 501(c)(4) group is primarily promoting “social welfare.” While such groups are permitted some el ...[text shortened]... it has, at the same time, an application for tax exempt status under 501(c)(4) pending.
31 May 13
Originally posted by no1marauderOf course the statement is true in a vacuum. It does not in any way excuse the targeting of groups based on political ideology, as the IRS has admitted doing.
Is this statement by Hayes wrong in any way:
“Now, here is the thing the IRS appears to have done unequivocally wrong, that we all agree was absolutely inexcusable. They reacted to all this by targeting one part of the ideological spectrum in looking at whether this flood of new applicants passed the smell test. [b]Being skeptical about a n ...[text shortened]... ropriate.”
It seems you are doing far more partisan shilling than Hayes is.[/b]
31 May 13
Originally posted by sh76This is exactly why the government can't be trusted with the power to tax an individual's income. It puts too much power in the hands of the Federal government which politicians abuse for their advantage.
Of course the statement is true in a vacuum. It does not in any way excuse the targeting of groups based on political ideology, as the IRS has admitted doing.
We need to replace this tax with something that can't be abused in such a way.
31 May 13
Originally posted by johnnylongwoodyIt's not the Supreme Court's job to take a position on what public money should be used for. Federal law offers matching campaign funds in some cases from public money. What Citizens United did was say that corporations cannot be stopped from running political ads because they have freedom of expression. You can disagree or agree with the decision, but I can't imagine any democracy would tolerate the government using a state apparatus to target political opponents of the government. That is a violation of the democratic process distilled to its essence.
Hi Sh,
here in Ireland if we have a referendum, there is a European Court ruling
that the Government must provide information but must not use any
public money to promote one argument over the other. It is called the
McKenna Judgement.
I don't know how the law is in the USA but it seems that political lobbying
is rampant and has always be ...[text shortened]... Supreme Court advocate that
public money must not be used to promote one side over the other?
31 May 13
Originally posted by EladarWell, how about we focus on stopping the abuse rather than throwing the baby out with the bathwater?
This is exactly why the government can't be trusted with the power to tax an individual's income. It puts too much power in the hands of the Federal government which politicians abuse for their advantage.
We need to replace this tax with something that can't be abused in such a way.
Originally posted by sh76Why are you so married to the idea of an income tax? Why not simply change the form of taxation, such as a national sales tax? Income tax is inherently dangerous and should be avoided.
Well, how about we focus on stopping the abuse rather than throwing the baby out with the bathwater?
31 May 13
Originally posted by sh76I agree with you. But surely the Government should not be allowed
It's not the Supreme Court's job to take a position on what public money should be used for. Federal law offers matching campaign funds in some cases from public money. What Citizens United did was say that corporations cannot be stopped from running political ads because they have freedom of expression. You can disagree or agree with the decision, but I can't ...[text shortened]... ts of the government. That is a violation of the democratic process distilled to its essence.
to use public money to promote only its own agenda.
Balance has to be applied in order for the voters to have a fair
view of the situation they may be asked to support or reject.
The Irish Government some years back used public monies to promote
their own agenda in a referendum. A Green Party member called
Patricia McKenna took issue with this stance. She took it all the way
through the legal process and won. The Irish Government were criticized
for what they did. They can no longer use public money to fund their own
agenda in any political situation.
Private money is a different matter.
Surely if your Federal Government is using any public money
to promote its own agenda then this should be seen as unconstitutional
by your Supreme Court and ruled upon accordingly because it may result
in an unbalanced view given to voters.