Jim McDermott gets it right.

[Joecooool]

“Freedom of speech is, no doubt, one of most important fundamental rights. It is unacceptable in every way for a government agency to unfairly scrutinize any organization because of their political affiliations. The IRS has unequivocally made a mistake here. I am sorry your organizations were singled out like this, and while I think this was a case of foolish account management and dangerously careless shortcuts, I will not hesitate to say that the IRS was wrong.

“But as I listen to this discussion, I’d like to remind everyone what we are talking about here. None of your organizations were kept from organizing or silenced. We are talking about whether or not the American taxpayers would subsidize your work. We are talking about a tax break.

“I get the feeling that many of you and my Republican colleagues don’t just believe you should be free from political targeting, but that you should be free from scrutiny of any kind.

“The purpose of C3 and C4 tax exemptions is to enable easier promotion of public good, not political work. It is the responsibility of the IRS to determine which groups are choosing the correct exempt status and which are trying to manipulate the system to avoid taxes and hide political organizations and their campaign donors. Without oversight, a status meant for charities becomes a machine for political money laundering. And if you think that’s farfetched, you can talk to Speaker Gingrich. He was fined $300,000 by the Ethics Committee for funneling money from a C3 to his Political Action Committee.

“Each of your groups is highly political. From opposing the President’s healthcare reform, to abortion restrictions, to gay marriage, you’re all entrenched in some of the most controversial political issues in this country – and with your applications you are asking the American public to pay for that work. Many of you host and endorse candidates. The line between permitted political activity and non-permitted political activity can be very fine, and it’s important that tax payers know which side you fall on.

“If there was an organization promoting taxpayer funding for abortions, wouldn’t you want to be sure they weren’t using their tax-free money to campaign for a candidate? What about a group that wanted to promote voting without I.D.’s? What if, in the midst of an increase of Communist candidates, new Communist clubs wanted tax-free status? Wouldn’t you want to be sure that the self-declared tax-free classifications of those groups were correct?

“The mistake here was that the staff organizing the applications used the names of the groups rather than the work they do – and asked improper questions to figure that out. It was wrong.

“But let’s not get lost. During the Bush administration liberal groups were targeted without any concern by Mr. Issa or anyone else in this committee. The Republicans are looking for a conspiracy where there isn’t one. Mr. Issa said he can feel in his gut that someone’s broken the law. Which is more likely: that midlevel employees took stupid, irresponsible shortcuts or that there’s an administration-wide plot to take down community organizers? Let’s not forget that this all happened under Republican IRS Commissioners and was investigated by a Republican Inspector General.

“What happened to you was unfair and incredibly inconvenient, but it was a mistake. Our job is to make sure this never happens again. Anything else, like the circus happening at the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, is political theatre.”

[Cybercowboy]

If you actually think he got it right, you have a 180 degree view of reality from what I have. Actually, he couldn't have gotten it any more wrong. First of all, he's talking as if we're still trying to find out whether the IRS actually did anything wrong. That's long be settled as fact. Secondly, he's talking as if this is some sort of government subsidy. Hardly, no more than any other IRS rules. Third, he claims that this did not affect the various groups from organizing or other activities. Well, that's a complete lie. Of course it did. It drastically affected donations and tied up the officers with mountains of paperwork. Finally, these are the rules Congress and the IRS have set up. To accuse an organization of trying to avoid all scrutiny is simply insane. This guy is a joke. You're agreement with him speaks volumes.

You actually don't think this is a big deal. It is. You should know that. You don't. Can't begin to tell you how much that disappoints me.

[Y2Kvert4me]

“What happened to you was unfair and incredibly inconvenient, but it was a mistake.

It was no mistake, it was absolutely deliberate, and what is being discovered now is likely just the tip of the iceberg in terms of revealing just how corrupt and criminal this administration is.

The IRS is not the only agency involved. That alone is quite telling as to who was pulling the strings.

[Joecooool]

Use some logic guys.

1) 501 (c) 4 status is a tax exempt stats for organizations that are mostly engaged in social welfare endeavors (and not promoting a particular candidate or party, etc) and they do not have to disclose donors.

2) There are also other tax exempt status like a 527 that political organizations can file for if they are primarily political in nature.

The conservative organizations with names like Tea party, Patriot, etc filing for tax exempt status as "political organizations" # 2 that I mentioned above, were NOT targeted.

If this was being done for 'political purposes', don't you think tax status # 2 would be the ones that would have been targeted?

If this was being done to stop political organizations from filing improperly as social welfare organizations then the IRS would target and review type #1 above, which they did. They are supposed to profile, to see of filing is being done properly by the right types of organizations, but not target one group over another. And the glaring fact that all of you fail to acknowledge is that the only groups that were actually denied this status were 3 with liberal sounding names.

Add to this the fact that the 527 "political" tax exempt organizations were NOT even delayed or backlogged...just the ones attempting to file as social welfare organizations... and it becomes clear there was NO 'political' targeting.

These organizations did not even have to file in advance for this tax status in order to operate, they can go ahead and do so. So, there would have been simply no political motive to delay their tax status at all. Nothing to gain and everything to lose.

Logically there is simply no reason or motive for this to have been political or to have come from the White House. They had nothing to gain - nothing at all.

[Y2Kvert4me]

IRS Hearings Paul Ryan Nails it !!!!! - YouTube

[Craig]

Paul Ryan got it righter as a response.

I don't see the IRS's actions as the big problem. The bigger problem is the tone that has been set by the leadership in government which states that, if you have a problem with big government and it's tactics, you'd best keep it to yourself, otherwise you're going to have an even bigger problem with big government, and it's tactics, you've been warned. I think now we all have.

[RedLS1GTO]

“Each of your groups is highly political. From opposing the President’s healthcare reform, to abortion restrictions, to gay marriage, you’re all entrenched in some of the most controversial political issues in this country – and with your applications you are asking the American public to pay for that work.

...and yet no groups supporting obamacare, supporting abortion, or supporting gay marriage were subjected to the extra scrutiny and delays.

Funny how that works. liberals have absolutely no problem with "the American public paying for that" when it is something they agree with. It's pathetic.

There is no f**king way you are actually stupid enough to think it isn't political.

[Joecooool]

Originally Posted by Y2Kvert4me

IRS Hearings Paul Ryan Nails it !!!!! - YouTube

He is ignoring the fact that they deliberately chose to file for 501(c) 4 status instead of 527 to skirt the law.

So while he intends his statement "You are to blame" to be hyperbole, he is actually correct.

[Y2Kvert4me]

Originally Posted by Joecooool

He is ignoring the fact that they deliberately chose to file for 501(c) 4 status instead of 527 to skirt the law.

Regardless of the approval status of the applicants, you don't feel the IRS sharing confidential information to groups of opposing beliefs isn't politically motivated?

[Chris Fowler]

Whether or not these groups are actually political is completely beside the point.

There are rules and laws about what may be asked and what may not be asked.

If the groups application shows they are political, deny their 501c(4) application. If it does not, approve it.

But they didn't do that. They targeted conservative groups and asked questions and made demands that are outside of what is allowed, still not denying their application. Stringing the groups on for, in some cases, years.

There are, almost definitely, groups on both sides of the issues that should not have tax exempt status that do. Again, not the issue here.

The issue is not whether or not they should have been approved. The issue is the requests that were made of the groups in the process.

And the question is who was involved in this violation.

[RedLS1GTO]

Originally Posted by Joecooool

He is ignoring the fact that they deliberately chose to file for 501(c) 4 status instead of 527 to skirt the law.

great... you might actually have an argument if you weren't conveniently ignoring the fact that none of the liberal groups doing the exact same thing were subjected to the bullsh*t.

You also fail to address the issue that is every bit as important, if not more. Confidential information from CONSERVATIVE groups was leaked to LIBERAL groups by the IRS. Whether they were "skirting the law" or not is completely irrelevant. Whether they should actually get the approval or not is completely irrelevant. There is absolutely no way you can possibly spin it so that is not a huge deal.

[Joecooool]

Originally Posted by RedLS1GTO

...and yet no groups supporting obamacare, supporting abortion, or supporting gay marriage were subjected to the extra scrutiny and delays.

Funny how that works. liberals have absolutely no problem with "the American public paying for that" when it is something they agree with. It's pathetic.

There is no f**king way you are actually stupid enough to think it isn't political.

Yes they were, and in fact, three of them were rejected. There were no tea party groups rejected.

The IRS can audit anyone they choose, and they have a duty to ensure that the tax law is being followed. With limited resources they must discriminate in some way regarding who they choose to give extra scrutiny. The question is what way is appropriate? When the application itself gives off signals that it may not be legitimate, then why shouldn't they use that information to flag extra auditing? The number of applications for 501(c)4 status went from 2k to 20k after Citizens United and the number of conservative groups are the vast majority of groups that applied. The IRS basically decided to target a portion of the majority, groups that used the word "tea party". It is actually reasonable. The fact that there was an explosion of "tea party" and "patriot" groups, clearly political, that were claiming 501(c)4 status instead of 527, is absolutely a legitimate reason for flagging them. A judge already ruled against some of these groups that they were in violation of their non profit status by trying to influence the election. Sorry, but I believe this is a legitimate reason for extra scrutiny of these groups.

And lets end the bullshit right now about how it was only conservatives groups were targeted. Close to a third of the advocacy groups named by the Internal Revenue Service as recipients of special scrutiny during tax-exempt application reviews were liberal or neutral in political outlook.

Non-conservative advocacy groups given special scrutiny by the IRS in or after 2010 included the Coffee Party USA, the alternative to the Tea Party movement that got a bunch of press in 2010, as well as such explicitly progressive groups as the Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada; Rebuild the Dream, founded by former Obama administration official Van Jones; and Progressives United Inc., which was founded by former Wisconsin senator Russ Feingold.

Also included in the special scrutiny were Progress Texas and Progress Missouri Inc., Tie the Knot, which sells bow ties to raise money to promote same-sex marriage, and ProgressNow, which describes itself as "a year-round never-ending progressive campaign."

The targeting also rolled up centrist groups, such as the Across the Aisle Foundation -- the educational and cultural arm of No Labels, which worked to build momentum for an independent ticket for the presidency -- and politically neutral ones, such as The East Hampton Group for Good Government Inc., formed to encourage better leadership and management of the New York vacation town, and the League of Women Voters of Hawaii.

All of these groups were flagged by the IRS along with the Tea Party class of groups as "potential political cases" and were part of the 31 percent of groups given special scrutiny that were not clearly conservative.

Proof the IRS Didn't Target Just Conservatives - Garance Franke-Ruta - The Atlantic

[RedLS1GTO]

Originally Posted by Chris Fowler

Whether or not these groups are actually political is completely beside the point.

There are rules and laws about what may be asked and what may not be asked.

If the groups application shows they are political, deny their 501c(4) application. If it does not, approve it.

But they didn't do that. They targeted conservative groups and asked questions and made demands that are outside of what is allowed, still not denying their application. Stringing the groups on for, in some cases, years.

There are, almost definitely, groups on both sides of the issues that should not have tax exempt status that do. Again, not the issue here.

The issue is not whether or not they should have been approved. The issue is the requests that were made of the groups in the process.

And the question is who was involved in this violation.

That pretty much sums it up.

If you don't understand that... well...

[Joecooool]

Originally Posted by Y2Kvert4me

Regardless of the approval status of the applicants, you don't feel the IRS sharing confidential information to groups of opposing beliefs isn't politically motivated?

There is ZERO proof of that happening.

[Joecooool]

Originally Posted by RedLS1GTO

great... you might actually have an argument if you weren't conveniently ignoring the fact that none of the liberal groups doing the exact same thing were subjected to the bullsh*t.

I've already shown you that this is simply not true.

You also fail to address the issue that is every bit as important, if not more. Confidential information from CONSERVATIVE groups was leaked to LIBERAL groups by the IRS. Whether they were "skirting the law" or not is completely irrelevant. Whether they should actually get the approval or not is completely irrelevant. There is absolutely no way you can possibly spin it so that is not a huge deal.

There is no proof that happened. If it does come out that this happened, then who ever did it should be fired.

[RedLS1GTO]

Originally Posted by Joecooool

Yes they were, and in fact, three of them were rejected. There were no tea party groups rejected.

You are either dense beyond words or willfully ignoring the point. There are undoubtedly groups from BOTH sides that should be rejected. Nobody is arguing that. The issue is the extra questions, stringing along, etc.

Your own statement shows the problem. None of these groups were rejected. If they didn't meet the requirements, they should have been rejected. End of story. That's not what happened. They have been strung along and drug through processes and questions outside of the rules of the IRS for YEARS. There are groups who are still waiting after 2-3 years.

It really isn't too complicated. What part exactly are you having trouble understanding?

[Cybercowboy]

Originally Posted by RedLS1GTO

You are either dense beyond words or willfully ignoring the point. There are undoubtedly groups from BOTH sides that should be rejected. Nobody is arguing that. The issue is the extra questions, stringing along, etc.

Your own statement shows the problem. None of these groups were rejected. If they didn't meet the requirements, they should have been rejected. End of story. That's not what happened. They have been strung along and drug through processes and questions outside of the rules of the IRS for YEARS. There are groups who are still waiting after 2-3 years.

It really isn't too complicated. What part exactly are you having trouble understanding?

It's pretty obvious now that Joecooool is completely good with it. To him, it's a great thing. It kept those uppity Tea Party groups on the sidelines long enough to get Obama elected a second time. The IRS ran interference for the White House, and he's completely good with it because the Ends justify the Means. Always. It's the hallmark of a true Progressive.

[Joecooool]

Originally Posted by RedLS1GTO

You are either dense beyond words or willfully ignoring the point. There are undoubtedly groups from BOTH sides that should be rejected. Nobody is arguing that. The issue is the extra questions, stringing along, etc.

Your own statement shows the problem. None of these groups were rejected. If they didn't meet the requirements, they should have been rejected. End of story. That's not what happened. They have been strung along and drug through processes and questions outside of the rules of the IRS for YEARS. There are groups who are still waiting after 2-3 years.

It really isn't too complicated. What part exactly are you having trouble understanding?

No I'm simply refuting your point that is wrong. That the IRS did not target liberal and progressive groups too. Are you willing to admit that yet?

And what exactly do you mean by "outside the rules"? What specific rules are there that the IRS must follow (and according to you broke) when investigating the non political claim of a 501(c)4?

[Joecooool]

Originally Posted by Cybercowboy

It's pretty obvious now that Joecooool is completely good with it. To him, it's a great thing. It kept those uppity Tea Party groups on the sidelines long enough to get Obama elected a second time. The IRS ran interference for the White House, and he's completely good with it because the Ends justify the Means. Always. It's the hallmark of a true Progressive.

I don't think you realize it, but you have just admitted that these "social welfare groups" were actually political groups. YOU are upset that they were not able to succeed in their deception.

Talk about an ends justifying the means...

[RedLS1GTO]

Originally Posted by Joecooool

I've already shown you that this is simply not true.

Ok. This should be an easy one for you then. Please post up the names of the liberal groups who were asked the same amount of intrusive (illegal) questions that were asked of these conservative groups.

Here are some examples for you:

• Provide details regarding all of your activity on Facebook and Twitter. Also, provide hard copies of all advertising you have conducted using social media outlets.
  
• Provide copies of all newsletter and blog postings created by your organization
  
• List each past or present board member, officer, employee, and member of their family who:
  a.) has served on the board of another organization
  b.) was, is, or plans to be a candidate for public office. Indicate the nature of each candidacy.
  c.) has previously conducted similar activities for another entity
  d.) has previously submitted an application for tax exempt status.
  
• Provide minutes of all board meetings since creation.
  
• Provide a list of all issues important to your organization. Indicate your position regarding each issue.

These questions were asked of these conservative groups. That is not debatable. If it was equal for all groups, where are all of the liberal groups coming forward saying they got those same questions?


While you're at it, please post the names of the liberal groups who have had their applications being processed for over 2 years.