Page 3 of 12 FirstFirst 123456789101112 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 180

Thread: IRS Apologizes for Targeting Conservative Groups

  1. #31
    Religipster Enkhidu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Province
    Dayton
    Oratio
    7,101

    Ignore User
    Quote Originally Posted by Scarbonac View Post
    So, you're ultimately saying that conservative are deserving of special protected status when applying for government benefits, then?
    No more or less so than, say, liberals.

 

  • #32
    %0 correct Scarbonac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Province
    It is a Mystery.
    Oratio
    4,696

    Ignore User
    Quote Originally Posted by Mistwell View Post
    Just like a two headed girl, dog-faced boy, Downs kid, Aspie, or Thalidomide baby!
    "1 out of 3 Trump supporters is as stupid as the other 2"

  • #33
    %0 correct Scarbonac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Province
    It is a Mystery.
    Oratio
    4,696

    Ignore User
    Quote Originally Posted by Enkhidu View Post
    No more or less so than, say, liberals.
    Hmmm...

    IRS examinations of politically vocal non-profits is not new—the most recent outrage to make the national news was in 2006, when tax officials threatened and persecuted liberal churches during the presidency of George W. Bush.
    "1 out of 3 Trump supporters is as stupid as the other 2"

  • #34
    Friendly Coffee Kzach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Province
    Melbourne
    Oratio
    9,732

    Ignore User
    Quote Originally Posted by Mistwell View Post
    The fact that you can quote that with a straight face as a legitimate source to back your argument is the problem I have with you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Xyxox View Post
    The problem is a governmental agency utilized politically based profiling in their investigations, also asking questions which were not allowed under the rules of the IRS and possibly under the law.
    But was it?

    It seems to me that there was a large amount of these organisations clamouring for exempt status and were using a pretty dodgy approach by claiming they were social welfare groups.

    If some lowbies said, "Hey, this is kinda suss, keep an eye out for it," to some even lower bies, then I don't really see why this is a big issue.

    Now, if a senior manager of some type who was part of discussions at a high level in the organisation filtered that request down, then maybe there'd be an issue. But even then, again, a massive influx of similar claims by dodgy organisations seems to me to be a legit reason to target them.
    Last edited by Kzach; May 13th, 2013 at 11:21 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ranger Wickett View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member.
    I'm mostly with Spoony.

  • #35
    Religipster Enkhidu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Province
    Dayton
    Oratio
    7,101

    Ignore User
    Quote Originally Posted by Scarbonac View Post
    Hmmm...
    So the IRS has needed a house cleaning since at least 2006? Yet another reason to dislike our over-large federal government.

  • #36
    That's Wacist! Mistwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Province
    Los Angeles, CA
    Oratio
    26,408

    Ignore User
    Quote Originally Posted by Scarbonac View Post
    Just like a two headed girl, dog-faced boy, Downs kid, Aspie, or Thalidomide baby!
    Just like a Canadian.
    I like hats.

  • #37
    Quote Originally Posted by Mistwell View Post
    Just like a Canadian.
    Conservatives are dumb, stay with the theme.
    Quote Originally Posted by nail bunny View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member.
    I believe the hammer locking back is PWD's trigger warning.

  • #38
    %0 correct Scarbonac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Province
    It is a Mystery.
    Oratio
    4,696

    Ignore User
    Quote Originally Posted by Enkhidu View Post
    So the IRS has needed a house cleaning since at least 2006? Yet another reason to dislike our over-large federal government.
    Interestingly, the guy in charge of the IRS at the time of the start of this little escapade was a Bush guy. Quit before the election.

    Hmmm...

  • #39
    Religipster Enkhidu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Province
    Dayton
    Oratio
    7,101

    Ignore User
    Quote Originally Posted by Scarbonac View Post
    Interestingly, the guy in charge of the IRS at the time of the start of this little escapade was a Bush guy. Quit before the election.

    Hmmm...
    If the guy was still around, I'd want him fired. As it is, I'm betting that the people who actually gave the orders are still around, and I definitely want them fired.

  • #40
    Quote Originally Posted by Enkhidu View Post
    If the guy was still around, I'd want him fired. As it is, I'm betting that the people who actually gave the orders are still around, and I definitely want them fired.
    I think there's real value in chasing whether claimed tax-free groups are engaging in politics that would deny them status (and there was an explosion of tea party idiots at the time to be suspicious of) but if it was indeed solely or even heavily conservative-focused to support the idea of an agenda then hell yes fire people.
    Quote Originally Posted by nail bunny View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member.
    I believe the hammer locking back is PWD's trigger warning.

  • #41
    toxic Xyxox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Province
    Aurora, IL
    Oratio
    8,633

    Ignore User
    Trump is just Putin's little bitch.

  • #42
    Has this been posted? First time I've seen it.

    Formatting's shit as it was a bitch to cut and paste - hit the link for easier reading.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...party-row.html

    The Internal Revenue Service, under pressure after admitting it targeted anti-tax Tea Party groups for scrutiny in recent years, also had its eye on at least three Democratic-leaning organizations seeking nonprofit status.

    One of those groups, Emerge America, saw its tax-exempt status denied, forcing it to disclose its donors and pay some taxes. None of the Republican groups have said their applications were rejected.

    Progress Texas, another of the organizations, faced the same lines of questioning as the Tea Party groups from the same IRS office that issued letters to the Republican-friendly applicants. A third group, Clean Elections Texas, which supports public funding of campaigns, also received IRS inquiries.

    In a statement late yesterday, the tax agency said it had pooled together the politically active nonpartisan applicants -- including a “minority” that were identified because of their names. “It is also important to understand that the group of centralized cases included organizations of all political views,” the IRS said in its statement.

    President Barack Obama, in a statement last night, called the IRS employees’ actions “intolerable” and directed Treasury Secretary Jacob J. Lew to hold “those responsible for these failures accountable.”

    Tax (GDP%NPOT) agency officials told lawmakers in a briefing yesterday that 471 groups received additional scrutiny, a total that indicates a crackdown on politically active nonprofit groups that extends beyond the Tea Party outfits.

    Broader Hearings

    Some lawmakers on Capitol Hill and campaign finance watchdog groups are pressing to expand congressional hearings to encompass everything the IRS is doing concerning nonprofits, including whether such groups should be allowed to spend money on political efforts at all.

    Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat who sits on the Senate Finance Committee, which is conducting its own IRS investigation, has introduced legislation with Alaska Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski to require all groups spending money on politics to disclose their donors.

    “These problems will continue as long as there is an absence of clear and enforceable rules,” Wyden told reporters yesterday. “In the absence of clear and enforceable rules the bureaucracy pretty much makes it up as they go along.”

    Political spending by nonprofits incorporated under Section 501(c)(4) of the tax code has increased since the U.S. Supreme Court (1000L) in 2010 removed limits on independent corporate and union spending and other court rulings paved the way for wealthy individuals to spend unlimited sums in elections.

    $1 Billion

    Outside groups -- including nonprofit social-welfare groups that don’t disclose their donors -- spent $1 billion in the 2012 elections, three times as much as they did four years earlier, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, based in Washington.
    “The real problem is that phony 501(c)(4) groups are exploiting the tax laws to protect donors who don’t want to be held accountable for vicious, deceitful political ads,” said Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.
    In early 2011, the IRS denied the tax-exempt status of an affiliate of the San Francisco-based Emerge America, which trains Democratic women to run for office. The agency said it was disqualified because the group’s activities were “conducted primarily for the benefit of a political party and a private group of individuals, rather than the community as a whole.”

    Approvals Revoked

    The decision was a surprise because four of Emerge America’s affiliates and its main headquarters already had been approved as nonprofits.
    The tax agency on Oct. 21, 2011, revoked those approvals. The national organization and its state affiliates are now incorporated under Section 527 of the tax code.

    “We didn’t even get the opportunity to answer questions,” said Karen Middleton, president of Emerge America. “We would have welcomed the opportunity to respond to a questionnaire.”

    An Austin, Texas-based group, Progress Texas, received a letter from the IRS in February 2013 when it sought nonprofit status. The letter came from the agency’s Laguna Niguel, California, office, which sent essentially the same queries to Republican-leaning groups.

    As with the Tea Party groups, the IRS sought copies of promotional materials, backgrounds of officers, meeting minutes and specifics about activities, such as get-out-the-vote drives, that the organization said it would conduct.

    Due Diligence

    Matt Glazer, former executive director, said the questionnaire was time-consuming though not intrusive.
    “It is up to the IRS and the government to do the due diligence necessary,” Glazer said in a telephone interview yesterday. “I’m not saying it was fun but it was important.”

    His group was approved.

    Clean Elections Texas, a Dallas-based group that backs taxpayer funding of elections -- a position that aligns with many Democrats -- also had to answer queries.

    “The IRS is finally doing its work, that was my feeling about it,” Liz Wally, the group’s executive director, said yesterday in a telephone interview. Her group was also approved for nonprofit status.

    Two law firms that represent 33 Republican-leaning organizations that say they were targeted by the IRS have said none of their clients was rejected for tax-exempt status.

    Long Delays

    Two of the groups gave up after long delays, said Gene Kapp, a spokesman for American Center for Law and Justice. Of the 27 groups the Washington-based firm represents, 15 have been approved and the other 10 are awaiting word from the IRS, Kapp said.

    Documents made public by lawyers for the Tea Party groups showed that they received letters from three other IRS offices besides Cincinnati -- Washington D.C. and two in California, El Monte and Laguna Niguel.

    Dan Backer, a Washington-based attorney who represents six Tea Party organizations, said it is “laughable” that low-level employees targeted the Republican-friendly groups.

    “That’s just not how government works,” he said in a telephone interview. “There’s a boss who said, ’Here is who we are targeting and here is what we are going to ask them.’”

    The IRS controversy reared up last week when Lois Lerner, the official in charge of overseeing tax-exempt groups, said the agency was wrong to pay special attention to organizations that used key words such as “tea party” or “patriot” or had policy positions on smaller government.

    Her May 10 disclosure came ahead the Inspector General’s report out yesterday. The report concluded that “ineffective management” allowed the inappropriate criteria to be developed and kept in place for more than 18 months.
    Quote Originally Posted by nail bunny View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member.
    I believe the hammer locking back is PWD's trigger warning.

  • #43
    Pony Up! Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Province
    The Paddock
    Oratio
    28,176

    Ignore User
    That's cute and all -- I mean, I supposed it'a a defense to point out you did normal work alongside criminal acts, but that's the entirety of that article's attempt at equivocation. Oddly, you're really damn good at picking apart equivocation elsewhere, especially when Misty's doing it, but you're pushing it here yourself because... I don't know why.

    Yes, only a minorty of groups investigated were investigated because of conservative/tea-party naming criteria -- somewhere between 1/4 and 1/3 of all cases in the affected timeperiod. However, it's worth noting that EVERY application that fit that naming criteria was investigated. It's like saying 'Only 75 out of 300 pat downs were of blacks' and failing to mention that it was every black that was patted down. That distinction, aside from the clear evidence that biased criteria were applied, even after the group was directed to stop using that criteria, is what really shows how bad this is. Citizens were targeted for government harrassment (the actions went far beyond normal vetting procedures) based on political views held. This is really, really bad.

  • #44
    Quote Originally Posted by Ovinomancer View Post
    That's cute and all -- I mean, I supposed it'a a defense to point out you did normal work alongside criminal acts, but that's the entirety of that article's attempt at equivocation. Oddly, you're really damn good at picking apart equivocation elsewhere, especially when Misty's doing it, but you're pushing it here yourself because... I don't know why.

    Yes, only a minorty of groups investigated were investigated because of conservative/tea-party naming criteria -- somewhere between 1/4 and 1/3 of all cases in the affected timeperiod. However, it's worth noting that EVERY application that fit that naming criteria was investigated. It's like saying 'Only 75 out of 300 pat downs were of blacks' and failing to mention that it was every black that was patted down. That distinction, aside from the clear evidence that biased criteria were applied, even after the group was directed to stop using that criteria, is what really shows how bad this is. Citizens were targeted for government harrassment (the actions went far beyond normal vetting procedures) based on political views held. This is really, really bad.
    And you wonder why you're getting the treatment. I'd just a link Ovi. Take it as what you will.
    Quote Originally Posted by nail bunny View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member.
    I believe the hammer locking back is PWD's trigger warning.

  • #45
    Clear fail. They should have been targeting tea party groups with drones, not IRS investigations.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ovinomancer View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member.
    Fine, I'll say it because it's obvious -- VK is 100% right

  • Page 3 of 12 FirstFirst 123456789101112 LastLast

    Tags for this Thread

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •