The Bogus IRS Scandal..

[Nbadan]

The year 2010 gave us Citizens United. Suddenly corporations were people who had the right of free speech. But corporations didn't want their free speech to be disclosed. Enter the Koch Bros., Dick Armey and Freedom Works. In their basement lab, they concocted the very first para-political party, the Tea Party, disguised as a social welfare agency, a 501(c)4. Tea Party Groups were mysteriously born all over the US. Not surprisingly, people and the media began howling loudly that the Tea Party was a wholly political entity that should be a 527 entity for IRS purposes. The media mysteriously seems to have forgotten all this.

Again not surprisingly the IRS began to question this rash of new applicants. That's how you make a determination. But ah, the Koch Bros were ready. In March 2012 a conservative legal foundation, the Landmark Legal Foundation filed a complaint with the Inspector General of the Treasury that the Tea Party groups were being unfairly targeted.
http://www.landmarklegal.org/uploads/IRS%20IG%20Letter%20without%20attachments.pdf

Shortly thereafter the IRS systematically changed its procedures to avoid the appearance of targeting. Also shortly after, Congress made substantial bi-partisan inquiries into the matter, including conducting an investigation. They also concluded that unless/until the rules are changed, there can be no appearance of targeting.
http://documents.jdsupra.com/70eadcc1-e046-407f-8e...

So the Tea Party which is a 100% political organization can pretend it is a social welfare agency until the rules are changed by Congress. To fault IRS workers who were responding to complaints is an ex post facto re-investigation of something that has already been examined and addressed.

It must be Ground Hog Day.
The media mysteriously seems to have forgotten all this.
http://www.landmarklegal.org/uploads/IRS%20IG%20Letter%20without%20attachments.pdf
http://www.landmarklegal.org/uploads/IRS%20IG%20Letter%20without%20attachments.pdf

In order to claim that targeting these conservative groups was politically motivated, republicans have to agree that these groups applying for the 501(c)4 tax-exemption were, in fact, political, and illegally trying to skirt a tax law that republicans regularly defend. When applying for these statuses, an organization has to prove it is the type of organization to which the exemption applies. Why wouldn't there be reason to look into it carefully if the name has a political bent to it?

[Winehole23]

if it's done evenhandedly, no problem. is that the case?

[boutons_deux]

if it's done evenhandedly, no problem. is that the case?

yes, of course.

Vetting is required by the IRS regs to grant tax exemption, vetting only "Tea Bagger" or "Patriot" is.

Chris Hayes explained clearly how shitty the rule is, how hard it is to define where the line where "too much political" is. Calling Rove, tea bagger, patriot orgs non-political and "social welfare" is Orwellian language abuse.

[boutons_deux]

IRS scandal points to budget crunch
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ee902cea-bf02-11e2-87ff-00144feab7de.html#axzz2TaHuNVL8

btw, tea party / patriot applications were only about of 1/3 of all applicatons, so they weren't singled out. YES, BOGUS IRS scandal

[boutons_deux]

Policing Tax Evasion Could Save Billions, But Republicans Won't Fund Enforcement
In February, the Obama administration requested $339.3 million in additional funding (http://www.treasury.gov/about/budget-performance/Documents/CJ_FY2012_IRS_508.pdf) for the Internal Revenue Service in 2012 to chase this costly tax evasion. According to the IRS, that extra funding would be paid back twice over with the additional revenue brought in through enforcement.

Most outside economists agree.

"There is no question that the IRS agents are able to produce enough extra revenue to be a good return on that investment," said Wayne Angell, a conservative economist who is a former governor of the Federal Reserve Board and has previously worked for Bear Stearns.

Yet instead of supporting increased enforcement, the GOP has been trying to cut IRS funding. In March, the House GOP sought to strip $600 million (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20110301/us-gop-tax-collectors/) from the IRS budget as part of the continuing budget resolution. IRS commissioner Douglas Shulman told a house subcommittee those cuts would cost the government $4 billion in lost revenue. The final budget deal left the tax collection agency's annualized budget unchanged at $12.1 billion, $486 million less than the Obama administration had requested (http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy11/pdf/budget/treasury.pdf).

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/28/irs-budget-cuts-deficit_n_850243.html


stopping criminal tax evasion is apparently seen as a hated "tax hike" by the Repugs :lol

[boutons_deux]

IRS nonprofit division overloaded, understaffed
Amid withering accusations the Internal Revenue Service targeted (http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/12/18203393-irs-watchdog-senior-official-knew-in-2011-that-tea-party-groups-were-targeted?lite) tea party and other conservative groups with enhanced scrutiny (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/irs-targeted-groups-critical-of-government-documents-from-agency-probe-show/2013/05/12/bb38e5bc-bb24-11e2-97d4-a479289a31f9_story.html), the agency faces another problem: it’s drowning in paperwork.

The IRS’ Exempt Organizations Division, which finds itself at the scandal’s epicenter, processed significantly more tax exemption applications in fiscal year 2012 by so-called 501(c)(4) “social welfare” organizations — 2,774 — than it has since at least the late 1990s, according to an analysis of IRS records (http://k003.kiwi6.com/hotlink/5363a09tp8/fy2012irseo.pdf) by the Center for Public Integrity (http://www.publicintegrity.org/).

Compare that to 1,777 applications in 2011 and 1,741 in 2010, federal records show. Not since 2002, when officials processed 2,402 applications, have so many been received.

Meanwhile, Exempt Organizations Division staffing slid from 910 employees during fiscal year 2009 to 876 during fiscal year 2012, agency personnel documents indicate.

In 2010, IRS officials projected exempt division staffing at 942 employees. But IRS officials cut the number to 900 after the agency began slashing its budget in response to fiscal woes affecting most corners of the federal government.

The agency said this weekend that a heavy workload prompted bureaucrats to “centralize” the “influx of advocacy applications” and, in the name of efficiency, scrutinize groups that contained more common phrases such as “tea party” in them.


http://www.publicintegrity.org/2013/05/14/12660/irs-nonprofit-division-overloaded-understaffed?utm_source=email&utm_campaign=watchdog&utm_medium=publici-email

[boutons_deux]

How the IRS’s Nonprofit Division Got So Dysfunctional


Moves launched in the 1990s were designed to streamline the tax agency and make it more efficient. But they had unintended consequences for the IRS’s Exempt Organizations division.

Checks and balances once in place were taken away. Guidance frequently published by the IRS and closely read by tax lawyers and nonprofits disappeared. Even as political activity by social welfare nonprofits exploded (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1012/82387.html) in recent election cycles, repeated requests for the IRS to clarify exactly what was permitted for the secretly funded groups were met, at least publicly, with silence.

All this combined to create an isolated office in Cincinnati, plagued by what an inspector general this week described (http://www.propublica.org/documents/item/700658-201310053fr-revised-redacted-12#document/p13/a103056) as “insufficient oversight,” of fewer than 200 low-level employees responsible for reviewing more than 60,000 nonprofit applications a year.
In the end, this contributed to what everyone from Republican lawmakers to the president says was a major mistake: The decision by the Ohio unit to flag for further review applications from groups with “Tea Party” and similar labels. This started around March 2010, with little pushback from Washington until the end of June 2011.

“It’s really no surprise that a number of these cases blew up on the IRS,” said Marcus Owens, who ran the Exempt Organizations division from 1990 to 2000. “They had eliminated the trip wires of 25 years.”

http://www.propublica.org/article/how-irs-nonprofit-division-got-so-dysfunctional

[Wild Cobra]

Dan...

You are an absolute idiot.

See:

link: Internal Revenue Service Scrutiny of Non-profit Groups, Part 1, May 17, 2013 (http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/ServiceTar) 1 hour, 38 minutes

link: Internal Revenue Service Scrutiny of Non-profit Groups, Part 2, May 17, 2013 (http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/IRSH) 1 hour, 52 minutes

[George Gervin's Afro]

Dan...

You are an absolute idiot.

See:

link: Internal Revenue Service Scrutiny of Non-profit Groups, Part 1, May 17, 2013 (http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/ServiceTar) 1 hour, 38 minutes

link: Internal Revenue Service Scrutiny of Non-profit Groups, Part 2, May 17, 2013 (http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/IRSH) 1 hour, 52 minutes

coming from an absolute idiot..lol

[boutons_deux]

6 Key Takeaways From the Stupidity and Reality of IRS 'Scandal'
1. The IRS made mistakes with both parties.

The scandal mongers have said that the IRS went too far (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-denounces-reported-irs-targeting-of-conservative-groups/2013/05/13/a0185644-bbdf-11e2-97d4-a479289a31f9_story.html) [3] in pressing Tea Party groups for information when applying for federal non-profit tax status. Lost in this fine print is a critical fact. As Bloomberg.com reported (http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-05-14/irs-sent-same-letter-to-democrats-that-fed-tea-party-row-taxes) [4], IRS staffers sent the same questionaire to Democratic groups suspected of not being charities but political as well. So it’s not just an "attack" on Republicans.

2. The real issue is the IRS isn’t doing its job.

On Wednesday, Rhode Island Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse gave a speech (http://www.whitehouse.senate.gov/news/speeches/the-two-scandals-at-the-irs) [5] in the Senate where he laid out the fictions used by political groups to masquarade as charities. He pointed out that industry groups—like PhRMA, the drug company lobby—file reports to IRS and Federal Election Commission filled with contradictory information about their political activities. “Making a material false statement to a federal agency is not just bad behavior, it’s a crime,” he said. But “the Department of Justice won’t prosecute false statements… unless the case has been referred by the IRS… [and] the IRS never makes a referral.”

“So it is very wrong that the IRS required additional information from a number of organizations based on a screen incorporating their Tea Party orientation,” Whitehouse said. “Picking on the little guy is a pretty lousy thing to do; rolling over for the powerful and letting them file false statements is pretty lousy too.”

3. Team Obama’s hysterical overreactions.

The adminstration’s reactions, from the president to Attorney General Eric Holder, have fed the hysteria and given the GOP a green light to turn the Tea Party into victims. Not only did the firing of the IRS acting director come prematurely, but Obama’s overreaction cements the notion that many local Tea Party groups—frequently funded (http://wallstreetonparade.com/2013/05/it-wasn%E2%80%99t-conservatives-that-were-being-investigated-by-the-irs-it-was-the-koch-brothers%E2%80%99-front-groups/) [6] by the Koch brothers—were entitled to be treated the same under tax law as the March of Dimes. Moreover, Holder’s statement that he was recusing himself while announcing the FBI investigation just picks another fight (http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/300075-holder-issa-behavior-shameful) [7] between the administration and congressional Republicans. What Obama could have done was take the risk of explaining how the system really works—what’s broken—and the solutions, even though he has been a beneficiary of it.

4. Charities are not political front groups.

The question of who turned charities into political front groups has barely been discussed. The answer, of course, is the same as it always has been: election lawyers and campaign consultants who look for loopholes in the law so clients can run for office using any tactic with little or no accountability.

Media coverage of this scandal has had the wrong starting line. It wasn’t the IRS that deluged its staff with thousands (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/10/the-irs-was-wrong-to-target-the-tea-party-they-shouldve-gone-after-all-501c4s/) [8] of applications from political groups pretending to be charities. It was groups following the advice or example of campaign consultants such as Karl Rove. He was the first to use this ruse on a large scale in order to run a shadow presidential campaign where he could hide his donors’ identities.

The way this works is simple. After the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling deregulated campaign finances, political operators looked for ambiguities (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2013/05/the_irs_tea_party_scandal_the_lesson_is_better_cam paign_finance_disclosure.html) [9] to exploit and turned to non-profit tax law—knowing the agency's primary focus has nothing to do with electioneering. One of the legal ambiguities is the fiction that "public education" and "lobbying" activities by non-profits groups are not political (and thus subject to election law) if they comprise more than 50 percent of that group’s activities.
So that’s what Karl Rove ginned up with his non-profit Crossroads GPS (http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2012/10/11/american-crossroads-70-from-anonymous-donors/) [10], which spent $123 million for the 2012 federal elections, according to the Sunlight Foundation, with 70 percent raised from secret donors. The IRS still has not issued a ruling on whether Rove’s group violated non-profit tax law.

5. The IRS’s top GOP critics were elected this way.

Pennsylvania Republican Sen. Pat Toomey might be the GOP frontman on federal gun controls, but on this issue he has compared (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/16/opinion/the-real-irs-scandal.html?ref=politics&_r=0) [11] the IRS scrutiny to President Richard Nixon’s infamous enemies list. Of course, two political non-profits, Rove’s Crossroads GPS and the Republican Jewish Coalition spent $17.6 million on his behalf by the time Election Day rolled around last fall. He’s hardly the only member of Congress whose rise to power was helped by political front groups masquerading as tax-exempt charities.

One of the unwritten but enduring Washington rules is that both political parties will not tinker with the tactics that helped them gain power—because they mastered the system to get elected. But that is not even the biggest GOP hypocrisy surrounding this "scandal."

6. Lies are so big they hide in plain sight.

The party known for voter suppression and intimidation now feels targeted? The spectacle of Republicans protesting that its groups were targeted by the IRS, when the only business of some of these groups was to lead the GOP’s 2012 voter suppression efforts, is just unbelievable. The GOP has spent years trying to discourage and suppress voting blocks that it perceives will back Democrats, such as black and brown voters, and students. Its entire "voter fraud" canard is based on policing the polls in myriad ways targeting millions of voters.

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/6-key-takeaways-stupidity-and-reality-irs-scandal

[boutons_deux]

The IRS and the Real Scandal “This systematic abuse cannot be fixed with just one resignation, or two,” said (http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/05/17/184712231/congress-due-to-grill-ousted-irs-chief)David Camp, the Republican chairman of the House tax-writing committee, at an oversight hearing Friday morning dealing with the IRS. “This is not a personnel problem. This is a problem of the IRS being too large, too intrusive, too abusive.”

David Camp has it wrong. There has been a “systematic” abuse of power, but it’s not what Camp has in mind. The real scandal is that:

The IRS has interpreted our tax laws to allow big corporations and wealthy individuals to make unlimited secret campaign donations through sham political fronts called “social welfare organizations,” like Karl Rove’s “Crossroads,” the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and “Priorites USA.”

This campaign money has been used to bribe Congress to keep in place tax loopholes like the “carried interest” rule that allows the managers of hedge funds and private equity funds to treat their income as capital gains, subject only to low capital gains taxes rather than ordinary income taxes, and other loopholes that allow CEOs to get special tax treatment on giant compensation packages that now average $10 million a year.

Despite a growing number of billionaires and multi-millionaires using every tax dodge imaginable – laundering their money through phantom corporations and tax havens — the IRS’s budget has been cut by 17 percent since 2002, adjusted for inflation. To manage the $594.5 million in additional cuts required by the sequester, the agency will furlough each of its more than 89,000 employees for at least five days this year.

Finally, all of this, coming at a time when the Supreme Court has deemed corporations “people” under the First Amendment and when income and wealth are more concentrated at the top than they’ve been in over a hundred years, has enabled America’s financial elite to further entrench their wealth and power and thereby take over much of American democracy.

This is the real scandal and the real abuse, Congressman Camp. Your indignation over the IRS’s alleged “targeting” of conservative groups is a distraction from the main event.

http://robertreich.org/post/50660147280

[Wild Cobra]

Shazbot, I stopped at the first point of the first of your last two links. Why should I read more, when what you post has no merit?

Yes, liberal agencies sometimes get denied that status too. It was the IRS's job to accept or deny applicants. The problem here was that keywords in the name were used, and then approval was delayed 2 years till after the 2012 elections, while approved liberal organizations only took about 90 days normally.

Go back and watch the two C-Span links I posted.

[Nbadan]

Karl Rove is the real poster boy for the so-called IRS (Internal Revenue Service) “scandal” of taking a closer look at applications by political organizations seeking a 501(c)(4) tax status that makes them not only tax exempt but protects their donors with anonymity.

That 501(c )(4) is one sweet deal: not only do these organizations get untraceable, tax-free money laundering for their political activities, they gat a taxpayer subsidy to do it.

And it gets better: some of these activities used to be illegal and people working for the Committee to Re-Elect the President (CREEP) – Nixon in 1972 – were convicted of law-breaking, as were some corporate donors. In October 2010 in the New York Times, Jill Abramson noted one illegal Nixon operation was run by “a group of Nixon loyalists, some of whom are leading this year’s non-profit push.”

Early in 2010, Karl Rove, who was with Nixon in 1972, founded American Crossroads, a perfectly legal, openly political, tax-exempt 527 organization, with no limits on the amount or source of their contributions, and no spending limits. Despite these freedoms, 527s were still prohibited from openly supporting particular candidates, and they had to register with the IRS, disclose donors, and file reports.

Read more: http://samuel-warde.com/2013/05/the-bogus-irs-scandal-is-an-actual-supreme-court-scandal/

[Wild Cobra]

Read more: http://samuel-warde.com/2013/05/the-bogus-irs-scandal-is-an-actual-supreme-court-scandal/
So?

I guess you don't believe in the fourth amendment, as it applies to personal action either. How one spends their own money is their business. Not yours.

Granted, not exactly covered by the fourth, but strikingly similar to me.

[boutons_deux]

Karl Rove Equates His Dark-Money ‘Social Welfare’ PAC With The NAACP
http://www.nationalmemo.com/watch-karl-rove-equates-his-dark-money-social-welfare-pac-with-the-naacp/


Repug REACHOUT to blacks continues full speed ahead! :lol

[Marcus Bryant]

if it's done evenhandedly, no problem. is that the case?

Probably not. Of course, the IRS appears to have managed this as well as one would expect croutons to do.

The only question is what did the president know and when did he know it?

[SA210]

Damn lol


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOpcqteueqg

[Wild Cobra]

Damn lol


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOpcqteueqg

I watched the 3+ hr video from C-Span I linked in post 8. Congress proved this guy to be an incompetent, or covering for others in my view.

That snippet starts at 1:37:01 of the part 2 I linked.

[boutons_deux]

Probably not. Of course, the IRS appears to have managed this as well as one would expect croutons to do.

The only question is what did the president know and when did he know it?

Over half of the 5014c's vetteed werer NOT tea-bagger/non-patriot orgs.

the scandal is fabricated, bogus, 100% pure, bad-faith, anything-but-do-real-work, harassment, witch-hunting politics.

[CosmicCowboy]

The IRS admitted they intentionally targeted conservative groups.

/thread

[boutons_deux]

The IRS admitted they intentionally targeted conservative groups.

/thread

:lol

Of course, why not? Extreme right-wing SCOTUS C-U plus really shit law making opened the door.

An excellent policy, given the explosion of tax-evading, dark money groups, and IRS "targeted" more non-conservative groups than conservative.

/thread

[CosmicCowboy]

:lol

Of course, why not? Extreme right-wing SCOTUS C-U plus really shit law making opened the door.

An excellent policy, given the explosion of tax-evading, dark money groups, and IRS "targeted" more non-conservative groups than conservative.

/thread

Ever heard of George Soros, fuckwad?

[boutons_deux]

Ever heard of George Soros, fuckwad?

sure, what about him, in the context of IRS vetting probably bogus 501c4 orgs?

[CosmicCowboy]

Pot, Kettle. IRS just doesn't stall liberal 504's.

[boutons_deux]

Pot, Kettle. IRS just doesn't stall liberal 504's.

go fetch the list of 5014c's orgs that were questioned, less than half are right-wing assholes. btw, none of the right-wing orgs were denied tax exempt status.

[CosmicCowboy]

go fetch the list of 5014c's orgs that were questioned, less than half are right-wing assholes. btw, none of the right-wing orgs were denied tax exempt status.

questioned =/= delayed approval.

The IRS admitted it, dumbass.

[boutons_deux]

questioned =/= delayed approval.

The IRS admitted it, dumbass.

questioned, vetted, delayed (Repugs have forced cutback in IRS budget, staffing) whatever semantics you want to play, SOME criteria must be used, and "tea party" and "patriot" in the context of C-U and Karl Rove promoting 501c4 all over the country as a way for tea baggers to evade taxes are perfectly reasonable. Now go dig up the selection criteria for non-tea bagger/patriot groups vetted and who outnumbered the tea-bagger/patriot frauds.

[CosmicCowboy]

:lol @ Boutons trying to spin this like nothing untoward happened when the IRS already admitted it.

[boutons_deux]

Nonconservative Groups Say IRS Scrutinized Them, Too


The IRS was in the hot seat Friday, with its outgoing acting commissioner . A Senate panel is scheduled for Tuesday. Congress is prodding to find out why the agency singled out conservative groups for special scrutiny.

Attention has focused on the IRS' flagging of these groups starting in 2010. But some liberal groups and journalism organizations say their applications for tax-exempt status also faced long delays and were closely scrutinized during the same period.

The year 2010 began a busy period for the IRS office in Cincinnati, the home of the tax-exempt determinations unit. That January, the Supreme Court handed down its Citizens United decision, which loosened the rules governing contributions to political causes and candidates. Applications flooded in to the office from groups seeking tax-exempt status, many with a political agenda.

The IRS has admitted it flagged applications from groups with "Tea Party" or "Patriot" in their names. But applications from other groups were closely scrutinized as well.

An Austin, Texas-based progressive group, Progress Texas, was one of them. Its executive director, Ed Espinoza, says it took almost a year and a half for the IRS to review the application from his organization. The process included answering a detailed questionnaire.

"It was nine pages and 21 questions, and inside those 21 questions, there were additional questions," Espinoza says. "So it was fairly extensive, and it was fairly thorough."

In 2010, some 1,700 applications for 501(c)(4) tax-exempt status came into the Cincinnati office. That number nearly doubled by 2012. Yet according to the , just one person was originally given the task of sifting through the applications deemed politically sensitive. Marcus Owens, a former IRS official, says that's a lot of work for one staffer.

"These were applications that were identified because they were likely to have issues that were complex, which means that they were going to take more time," Owens says. "So it seems like that would be more than one person could easily handle."

Another application that seemingly got caught up in the backlog came from a group of journalists in Chicago. The Chicago News Cooperative provided news for the Midwest edition of The New York Times. The co-op also sought tax-exempt status. Veteran journalist James O'Shea, a former managing editor of The Chicago Tribune, was in charge.

"There were political organizations trying to get these exemptions, and I think the IRS was concerned — and probably appropriately so — that some of these news organizations were really political organizations," he says, "and so they were examining that, and we just got caught up in that."

For more than two years, the Chicago News Cooperative waited for an IRS ruling. But without tax-exempt status, foundation support dried up, and the cooperative went out of business.

Progress Texas did eventually get its tax-exempt status. Espinoza says he has no trouble with the scrutiny his organization underwent.

"Look, if you want a tax exemption, you've got to jump through some hoops," he says. "You need to be able to demonstrate that what you're doing is legitimately a tax-exempt activity, and that's what we saw it as."

There's no sign the backlog of applications for tax-exempt status at the IRS has eased. Owens, now a tax lawyer in Washington, says according to the IRS website, the agency is now looking at applications made in March of last year. That means there are some 20,000 applications still in the queue.


http://www.npr.org/2013/05/19/185206908/nonconservative-groups-say-irs-scrutinized-them-too?sc=17&f=1001

[CosmicCowboy]

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lt7137rXvc1r17215o1_500.gif

[boutons_deux]

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lt7137rXvc1r17215o1_500.gif

CC as eloquent (speechless and coy and bitch slapped) as TB :lol

All Y'All Bubbas Can't Handle The Truth (but all y'all do very well with lies and slander)

[TeyshaBlue]

lol at boutons obsession with me.

I must've left a mark.:lmao

[boutons_deux]

TB :lol Boutons' most rabid stalker

[TeyshaBlue]

:cry Stop Stalking me!:cry

[Nbadan]

In order to claim that targeting these conservative groups was politically motivated, republicans have to agree that these groups applying for the 501(c)4 tax-exemption were, in fact, political, and illegally trying to skirt a tax law that republicans regularly defend. When applying for these statuses, an organization has to prove it is the type of organization to which the exemption applies. Why wouldn't there be reason to look into it carefully if the name has a political bent to it?

humf...

[tlongII]

http://25.media.tumblr.com/fbca5380aa193b46bce6f7fc265b2d88/tumblr_mmuxs8veXG1r54qfqo1_500.jpg

[TeyshaBlue]

humf...

The whole 501(c)as an entity, needs to be tossed.

[boutons_deux]

Six Facts Lost in the IRS Scandal

In the furious fallout from the revelation that the IRS flagged applications from conservative nonprofits for extra review because of their political activity, some points about the big picture -- and big donors -- have fallen through the cracks.

Consider this our Top 6 list of need-to-know facts on social welfare nonprofits, also known as dark money groups because they don’t have to disclose their donors. The groups poured more than $256 million into the 2012 federal elections.

1. Social welfare nonprofits are supposed to have social welfare, and not politics, as their “primary” purpose.

A century ago, Congress created a tax exemption for social welfare nonprofits. The statute defining the groups says they are supposed to be “operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare.” But in 1959, the regulators interpreted the “exclusively” part of the statute to mean groups had to be “primarily” engaged in enhancing social welfare. This later opened the door to political spending.

So what does “primarily” mean? It’s not clear. The IRS has said it uses a “facts and circumstances” test to say whether a group mostly works to benefit the community or not. In short: If a group walks and talks like a social welfare nonprofit, then it’s a social welfare nonprofit.

This deliberate vagueness has led some groups to say that “primarily” simply means they must spend 51 percent of their money on a social welfare idea -- say, on something as vague as “education,” which could also include issue ads criticizing certain politicians. And then, the reasoning goes, a group can spend as much as 49 percent of its expenditures on ads directly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate for office.

Nowhere in tax regulations or rulings does it mention 49 percent, though. Some nonprofit lawyers have argued that the IRS should set hard limits for social welfare nonprofits -- setting out, for instance, that they cannot spend more than 20 percent of their money on election ads or even limiting spending to a fixed amount, like no more than $250,000.

So far, the IRS has avoided clarifying any limits.

2. Donors to social welfare nonprofits are anonymous for a reason.

Unlike donors who give directly to politicians or even to super PACs, donors who give to social welfare nonprofits can stay secret. In large part, this is because of an attempt by Alabama to force the NAACP, then a social welfare nonprofit, to disclose its donors in the 1950s. In 1958, the Supreme Court sided with the NAACP, saying that public identification of its members made them at risk of reprisal and threats.

The ACLU, which is itself a social welfare nonprofit, has long made similar arguments. So has Karl Rove, the GOP strategist and brains behind Crossroads GPS, which has spent more money on elections than any other social welfare nonprofit. In early April 2012, Rove invoked the NAACP in defending his organization against attempts to reveal donors.

The Federal Election Commission could in theory push for some disclosure from social welfare nonprofits -- for their election ads, at least. But the FEC has been paralyzed by a 3-3 partisan split, and its interpretations of older court decisions have given nonprofits wiggle room to avoid saying who donated money, as long as a donation wasn’t specifically made for a political ad.

New rulings indicate that higher courts, including the Supreme Court, favor disclosure for political ads, and states are also stepping into the fray. During the 2012 elections, courts in two states -- Montana and Idaho -- ruled that two nonprofits engaged in state campaigns needed to disclose donors.

But sometimes, when nonprofits funnel donations, the answers raise more questions. It’s the Russian nesting doll phenomenon. Last election, for instance, California’s election agency pushed for an Arizona social welfare nonprofit to disclose donors for $11 million spent on two California ballot initiatives. The answer? Another social welfare nonprofit, which in turn got the money from a trade association, which also doesn’t have to reveal its donors.

3. The Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision meant that corporations could pay for political ads, anonymously, using social welfare nonprofits.

In January 2010, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations and unions could spend money directly on election ads. A later court decision made possible super PACs, the political committees that can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money from donors, as long as they don’t coordinate with candidates and as long as they report their donors and spending.

Initially, campaign finance watchdogs believed corporations would give directly to super PACs. And in some cases, that happened. But not as much as anyone thought, and maybe for a reason: Disclosure isn’t necessarily good for business. Target famously faced a consumer and shareholder backlash after it gave money in 2010 to a group backing a Minnesota candidate who opposed gay rights.

Many watchdogs now believe that large public corporations are giving money to support candidates through social welfare nonprofits and trade associations, partly to avoid disclosure. Although the tax-exempt groups were allowed to spend money on election ads before Citizens United, their spending skyrocketed in 2010 and again in 2012.

A New York Times article based on rare cases in which donors have been disclosed, sometimes accidentally, explored the issue of corporations giving to these groups last year. Insurance giant Aetna, for example, accidentally revealed it gave $3 million in 2011 to the American Action Network, a social welfare group founded by former Sen. Norm Coleman, a Republican, that runs election ads.

Groups that favor more disclosure have so far failed to force action by the FEC, the IRS, or Congress, although some corporations have voluntarily reported their political spending. Advocates have now turned to the Securities and Exchange Commission, which is studying a proposal to require public companies to disclose political contributions.

The idea is already facing strong opposition from House Republicans.

4. Social welfare nonprofits do not actually have to apply to the IRS for recognition as tax-exempt organizations.

With all the furor over applications being flagged from conservative groups -- particularly groups with “Tea Party,” “Patriot” or “9/12” in their names -- it’s worth remembering that a social welfare nonprofit doesn’t even have to apply to the IRS in the first place.

Unlike charities, which are supposed to apply for recognition, social welfare nonprofits can simply incorporate and start raising and spending money, without ever applying to the IRS.

The agency’s nonprofit wing is mainly concerned about ferreting out bad charities, which are the biggest chunk of nonprofits and the biggest source of potential revenue. After all, the IRS’s main job is to collect revenue. Charities allow donors to deduct donations, while social welfare nonprofits don’t.

Most major social welfare nonprofits do apply, because being recognized is seen as insurance against later determination by the IRS that the group should have registered as a political committee and may face back taxes and disclosure of donors. A recognition letter is also essential to raise money from certain donors -- like, say, corporations.

But some of the new groups haven’t applied.

The first time the IRS hears about these social welfare nonprofits is often when they file their first annual tax return, not due until sometimes more than a year after they’ve formed.

In many cases, the first time the IRS hears about these groups is a full year after an election.

5. Most of the money spent on elections by social welfare nonprofits supports Republicans.

Of the more than $256 million spent by social welfare nonprofits on ads in the 2012 elections, at least 80 percent came from conservative groups, according to FEC figures tallied by the Center for Responsive Politics.

None came from the Tea Party groups with applications flagged by the IRS. Instead, a few big conservative groups were largely responsible.

Crossroads GPS, which this week said it believes it is among the conservative groups "targeted" by the IRS, spent more than $70 million in federal races in 2012. Americans for Prosperity, the social welfare nonprofit launched by the conservative billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch, spent more than $36 million. American Future Fund spent more than $25 million. Americans for Tax Reform spent almost $16 million. American Action Network spent almost $12 million.

Besides Crossroads GPS, each of those groups has applied to the IRS and been recognized as tax-exempt. (You can look at their applications here.)

All of those groups spent more than the largest liberal social welfare nonprofit, the League of Conservation Voters, which spent about $11 million on 2012 federal races. The next biggest group, Patriot Majority USA, spent more than $7 million. Planned Parenthood spent $6.5 million. VoteVets.org spent more than $3 million.

None of those figures include the tens of millions of dollars spent by groups on certain ads that run months before an election that are not reported to the FEC.

6. Some social welfare groups promised in their applications, under penalty of perjury, that they wouldn’t get involved in elections. Then they did just that.

Much of the attention when it comes to Tea Party nonprofits has focused on their applications and how the IRS determines whether a group qualifies for social welfare status.

As part of our reporting on dark money in 2012, ProPublica looked at more than 100 applications for IRS recognition. One thing we noted again and again: Groups sometimes tell the IRS that they are not going to spend money on elections, receive IRS recognition, and then turn around and spend money on elections

The application to be recognized as a social welfare nonprofit, known as a 1024 Form, explicitly asks a group whether it has spent or plans to spend “any money attempting to influence the selection, nomination, election, or appointment of any person to any Federal, state, or local public office or to an office in a political organization.”

The American Future Fund, a conservative nonprofit that would go on to spend millions of dollars on campaign ads, checked “No”in answer to that question in 2008. The very same day the group submitted its application, it uploaded this ad to its YouTube account:

Even before mailing its application to the IRS saying it would not spend money on elections in 2010, the Alliance for America’s Future was running TV ads supporting Republican candidates for governor in Nevada and Florida. It also had given $133,000 to two political committees directed by Mary Cheney, the daughter of the former vice president.

Another example of this is the Government Integrity Fund, a conservative nonprofit that ran ads in last year’s U.S. Senate race in Ohio. Its application was approved after it told the IRS that it would not spend money on politics. The group went on to do just that.

http://www.propublica.org/article/six-facts-lost-in-irs-scandal

[boutons_deux]

"Bring Back Ken Starr": NYT's Bill Keller Joins Fox's Campaign For A Special Prosecutor
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/05/21/bring-back-ken-starr-nyts-bill-keller-joins-fox/194169

[SA210]

Benn Swann :toast


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87kIjQ7X7CU

[SA210]

ooooohh :rollin

Dude put it on this fool


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIpHuAh0sOI

[boutons_deux]

In IRS (fabricated, non-) scandal, new GOP tactic is ignorance (http://www.salon.com/2013/05/23/in_irs_scandal_new_gop_tactic_is_ignorance/)


So by not telling the president, officials ensured that there would be no perception of presidential meddling in the independent investigation. Instead of covering it up, the White House was making sure everything proceeded above board, even if it meant delaying recourse to the improper targeting of Tea Party groups.

Another former Justice Department Inspector General wrote an op-ed (http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/the-administration/300659-a-dose-of-reality-about-ig-audits) in The Hill stating that Treasury and the IRS “followed standard practice by not sharing [the] findings,” and that “it would be unprecedented in my experience for anyone outside the agency to become involved in the customary back and forth between the IG and the agency.”

Watchdog groups agree (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/wp/2013/05/21/whats-the-appropriate-level-of-white-house-involvement-with-ig-audits/), saying it would have been inappropriate for Treasury’s lawyers to tell the White house, and even more so for the White House to do something about it.

And you don’t have to their word for it. As it turns out, Republicans in Congress, including House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa, knew about the (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/05/republicans-informed-of-irs-investigation-last-year/) Inspector General’s report last year, but said nothing publicly at the time. Why not? “You don’t accuse the IRS until you’ve had a nonpartisan, deep look. That’s what the IG has done. That’s why the IGs in fact exist within government,” Issa told (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/18/darrell-issa-irs_n_3299624.html) Bloomberg News last week.

So some Republicans, like Eric Cantor, are attacking the White House for letting the IG investigation run its course while others, like Darrell Issa, are defending their own decisions to let the investigation run its course. One has to wonder if Cantor is really arguing from good faith, or if this just another desperate attempt to find some way to implicate the White House in a midlevel bureaucratic disciplinary action.

And what would happen if the White House did actually take action before the IG’s report was complete? It’s pretty safe to say the very same people attacking him now would be up in arms about improper political meddling in a independent investigation.

http://www.salon.com/2013/05/23/in_irs_scandal_new_gop_tactic_is_ignorance/

[CosmicCowboy]

The whole 501(c)as an entity, needs to be tossed.

As someone who works with several 501(c)3's and am a member of a 501(c)4 (Texas Wildlife Association) I strongly disagree.

[Nbadan]

Lois Lerner Shows Why Obama Needs to Get Rid of All Remaining Bush Appointees
http://www.politicususa.com/lois-lerner-pleads-fifth-republicans-hysterical.html


Pleading the fifth is evidence of guilt if you have the bad fortune to work under the Obama administration, but the same folks will defend your right to plead the fifth if you happen to be working under a Republican president. Too bad for Lois Lerner, who was appointed by Bush in 2006 as head of the IRS Exempt Organizations Division, but is now apparently going to serve as yet another fall guy for the cause.

Lois Lerner, “who let slip at an American Bar Association meeting on Friday that, between 2010 and 2012, conservative nonprofit groups were improperly scrutinized by the IRS”, is the person who drew attention to this “scandal”. She is also the IRS Director of Exempt Organizations.

Lerner gave an opening statement before yet another House Committee Wednesday morning, in a hearing on the allegations that the IRS targeted conservative groups for political reasons. Ms. Lerner said, before pleading the fifth, “I have not done anything wrong. I have not broken any laws. I have not violated any IRS rules or regulations, and I have not provided false information to this or any other congressional committee,” Lerner said. “Because I am asserting my right not to testify, I know that some people will assume that I have done something wrong. I have not.”

Charles Krauthammer told Fox News Tuesday night that it’s not unreasonable to infer that Lois Lerner’s decision to plea the fifth was evidence “that there is a lot got to hide and they are very worried.”

[Nbadan]

The Center for Responsive Politics has been intensively researching and writing about politically active nonprofits -- also known as 501(c)(4) organizations, or, more colloquially, "dark money" groups -- for more than a year. Since the 2010 Citizens United Supreme Court decision freed them to participate more directly in electoral politics, they have been used to pour money into the system at an unprecedented rate.

There has been an explosion of spending by nonprofit groups over the last three election cycles, from less than $17 million in 2006 to well over $300 million in 2012.

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/nonprofit%20spending%20growth%20by%20type.JPG

[Nbadan]

These groups, unlike the more commonly known super PACs, are not required to divulge the names of their donors, and much of their spending is unreported, too. Their annual tax filings with the IRS list how much money they have, who their officers are and the recipients of any grants they may have made.

But when they spend their money directly in support of or opposition to a candidate, they must report to the Federal Election Commission. FEC data collected and analyzed by OpenSecrets.org shows that in the 2012 election alone, politically active nonprofits reported spending more than $308 million. Many millions more were likely spent on "issue ads" that escaped reported rules.

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/nonprofit%20spending%20growth%20by%20viewpt.JPG

[spursncowboys]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/05/25/former-npr-ceo-ken-stern-the-irs-had-the-right-idea.html

[Wild Cobra]

These groups, unlike the more commonly known super PACs, are not required to divulge the names of their donors, and much of their spending is unreported, too. Their annual tax filings with the IRS list how much money they have, who their officers are and the recipients of any grants they may have made.

But when they spend their money directly in support of or opposition to a candidate, they must report to the Federal Election Commission. FEC data collected and analyzed by OpenSecrets.org shows that in the 2012 election alone, politically active nonprofits reported spending more than $308 million. Many millions more were likely spent on "issue ads" that escaped reported rules.

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/nonprofit%20spending%20growth%20by%20viewpt.JPG
What's wrong Dan? Crying because before 2009, liberals were spending equal or more than conservatives, and now conservatives are spending more?

Were you complaining about liberals spending more before the change in law?

[Nbadan]

http://editorialcartoonists.com/cartoons/RogerR/2013/RogerR20130528_low.jpg

[boutons_deux]

Proof the IRS Didn't Target Just Conservatives
http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/politics/assets_c/2013/06/Screen%20Shot%202013-06-05%20at%2012.29.43%20AM-thumb-570x329-123575.png

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/06/proof-the-irs-didnt-just-target-conservatives/276536/

[boutons_deux]

Five IRS Controversy Falsehoods Manufactured By Right-Wing Media



http://mediamatters.org/research/2013/06/04/five-irs-controversy-falsehoods-manufactured-by/194324

[Sportcamper]

The mystery is over. After a month of waiting, it turns out that an 84-year-old woman in Florida has won the $590 million Powerball lottery...

As for how much tax she’s going to have to pay, the IRS said it’s too early to tell because they don’t know whether she’s a Republican or Democrat...

[BobaFett1]

The mystery is over. After a month of waiting, it turns out that an 84-year-old woman in Florida has won the $590 million Powerball lottery...

As for how much tax she’s going to have to pay, the IRS said it’s too early to tell because they don’t know whether she’s a Republican or Democrat...

Boutons would tell you she has to share her money to the have nots.

[BobaFett1]

Five IRS Controversy Falsehoods Manufactured By Right-Wing Media



http://mediamatters.org/research/2013/06/04/five-irs-controversy-falsehoods-manufactured-by/194324

:lol media matters

[boutons_deux]

(witch hunting inquisitor Joe McCarthy-ist 0.1%er) Darrell Issa's IRS Investigation Is Falling Apart

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1190924/thumbs/r-DARRELL-ISSA-IRS-INVESTIGATION-large570.jpg?6

When Republicans won control of the House of Representatives in 2010, Representative Darrell Issa of California was supposed to become a star. Issa, who made no secret of his ambition, took over the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, vowing to use the power of his chairmanship to stage hundreds of hearings (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20022217-503544.html) and hold the Obama administration to account. Anticipating what he promised would be “constant battle (http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/fox-news-sunday/transcript/darrell-issa-fred-upton-talk-oversight-allen-west-mike-lee-tea-party-conservatives#p//v/920115990001),” the White House hired extra lawyers and braced for the onslaught.

But Issa wasn’t the force people expected him to be. His biggest investigation, into the botched anti-gun smuggling operation that left a Border Patrol agent dead, incited right-wing talk radio listeners. Beyond that, though, it barely registered. After two years in power, Issa seemed more bark than bite.

Then came last month’s revelation that IRS agents had singled out Tea Party groups for special scrutiny. Here was an issue that seized public attention and posed a legitimate threat to Obama. Since then, nobody in Congress has pushed harder than Issa to pin the scandal on the White House.

But after a burst of attention, Issa’s investigation appears to have stalled. Although he turned up embarrassing material—has any government official been humiliated quite like the IRS commissioner in the dorky video dressed up as Spock (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-06/irs-inquiries-multiply-with-spock-video-next-focus-of-ire.html)?—Issa hasn’t made the all-important connection to the White House. And he may not be able to. The news this week that he won’t release the full transcripts (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-11/irs-transcript-release-would-be-reckless-issa-says.html) of his interviews with IRS officials—interviews he selectively quoted from to imply White House complicity—suggests that what they contain may in fact exonerate the administration of the very charge Issa is laboring so hard to prosecute.

“Your push to release entire transcripts from witness interviews while the investigation remains active was reckless and threatened to undermine the integrity of the committee’s investigation,” Issa wrote in response to a letter from his Democratic counterpart, Representative Elijah Cummings of Maryland, who himself had selectively quoted the transcripts and then called on Issa to publicize the whole thing.

In theory, Issa could be building a case against the White House to rival Watergate that he just isn’t quite ready to unveil. But that’s highly unlikely. Cummings has seen the transcripts and wouldn’t call for their release if they contained information that would fell his party’s president. Issa’s weak-tea defense of why he won’t comply—witnesses might be demoted or fired, he says—only buttresses this suspicion. So does the effort by Issa’s colleague, Representative Dave Camp of Michigan, to broaden the investigation’s scope to include donor audits. You don’t broaden an investigation if you’ve found the smoking gun and nailed the culprit.

“We’re not anywhere near being able to jump to conclusions,” Camp told reporters, including Bloomberg’s Richard Rubin (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-12/camp-says-irs-targeting-didn-t-start-in-cincinnati-office.html), on Wednesday. So the IRS investigations will continue. But it’s getting harder to imagine that they’ll turn up evidence of a Nixonian plot, and if they don’t, Issa will have failed again.




http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-06-13/darrell-issas-irs-investigation-is-falling-apart

[boutons_deux]

Congressman Clears White House of Any Involvement With IRS/Tea Party Scandal
Yesterday, Democratic Congressman Elijah Cummings released the full transcript of a five-hour hearing on the IRS's alleged targeting of Tea Party Groups. And – it proves everything Congressman Cummings has been saying all along – the White House was not involved in deciding which groups were required to provide additional information to the IRS before getting tax-exempt status. Congressman Cummings released the 200-page document after charging that House Oversight Committee Chair Darrell Issa has misrepresented the Committee's findings by saying they found evidence of “Washington involvement.” According to the transcript, the only Washington-based IRS officials who reviewed the applications were part of a technical specialty group that was handling the case because it was “high-profile”, and working to ensure the all similar applications were processed in a uniform manner.

Chairman Issa released a statement saying he was “deeply disappointed that Ranking Member Cummings has decided to broadly disseminate” the transcript, and says it will “serve as a roadmap for IRS officials to navigate investigative interviews with Congress.”

However, his concern did not prevent his office from releasing portions of the transcript that deceptively imply White House involvement. Congressman Darrell Issa has purposely blurred the line between a tech-support group located in Washington, D.C. and 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Congressman Elijah Cummings has made a bold attempt to shed light on the situation, but it's doubtful that anything – even the blatant truth – will stop Darrell Issa from pursuing this political witch hunt.


http://truth-out.org/news/item/17087-on-the-news-with-thom-hartmann-congressman-clears-white-house-of-any-involvement-with-irs-tea-party-scandal

:lol

[boutons_deux]

:lol

Darrell Issa just had a bad day: IRS 'targeted' groups with 'Occupy' and 'Progressive' in names (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/06/24/1218531/-Darrell-Issa-just-had-a-bad-day-IRS-targeted-groups-with-Occupy-and-Progressive-in-names)

The Internal Revenue Service’s screening of groups seeking tax-exempt status was broader and lasted longer than has been previously disclosed, the new head of the agency said Monday.An internal IRS document obtained by The Associated Press said that besides ‘‘tea party,’’ lists used by screeners to pick groups for close examination also included the terms ‘‘Israel,’’ ‘'Progressive’’ and ‘‘Occupy.’’ The document said an investigation into why specific terms were included was still underway.

In a conference call with reporters, Danny Werfel said that after becoming acting IRS chief last month, he discovered wide-ranging and improper terms on the lists and said screeners were still using them. He did not specify what terms were on the lists, but said he suspended the use of all such lists immediately.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/06/24/1218531/-Darrell-Issa-just-had-a-bad-day-IRS-targeted-groups-with-Occupy-and-Progressive-in-names?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+dailykos%2Findex+%28Daily+Kos %29

[Winehole23]

http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/06/27/19171531-in-the-wake-of-a-discredited-scandal?lite

[Winehole23]

OTOH: http://washingtonexaminer.com/treasury-irs-targeted-292-tea-party-groups-just-6-progressive-groups/article/2532456#.UcxF0ZDCznc.twitter

[boutons_deux]

http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/06/27/19171531-in-the-wake-of-a-discredited-scandal?lite

"The Treasury inspector general (IG) whose report helped drive the IRS targeting controversy says it limited its examination to conservative groups because of a request from House Republicans."

:lol

House Repugs were FISHING for any evidence that their fraudulent conservative/tea bagger groups were "targeted" :lol

[Winehole23]

The operative paragraph from the IG letter:


"Based on the information you flagged regarding the existence of a 'Progressives' entry on BOLO lists, TIGTA performed additional research which determined that six tax-exempt applications filed between May 2010 and May 2012 having the words 'progress' or 'progressive' in their names were included in the 298 cases the IRS identified as potential political cases. We also determined that 14 tax-exempt applications filed between May 2010 and May 2012 using the words 'progress' or 'progressive' in their names were not referred for added scrutiny as potential political cases. In total, 30 percent of the organizations we identified with the words 'progress' or "progressive" in their names were processed as potential political cases. In comparison, our audit found that 100 percent of the tax-exempt applications with Tea Party, Patriots, or 9/12 in their names were processed as potential political cases during the timeframe of our audit."

[Th'Pusher]

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/06/irs_scandal_numbers.php?ref=fpb

[boutons_deux]

B O G U S !

a Repug-manufactured scandal, bad faith politics, while totally ignoring their responsibilities to govern, because Repugs don't gave a shit about governing.

IRS results: zilch

Benghazi results: zilch (Barry crushes Bishop Gecko)

The only people who believe IRS or Benghazi Repug bullshit are ignorant, suckered, Fox-watching assholes.

[boutons_deux]

Even Republicans Admit It: Politics Did Not Drive the IRS Tea Party "Scandal"



"We haven't proved political motivation," said Representative Charles Boustany Jr., a Louisiana Republican who, as the chairman of the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Oversight, is leading one inquiry.

Senator Roy Blunt, Republican of Missouri, said that in retrospect, suggestions that Mr. Obama had orchestrated an IRS attack on his political enemies were unwarranted.



"Presidents have always been very careful about maintaining the appearance of keeping hands off the IRS," he said. "I don't have any reason to believe there wasn't targeting of conservatives, but it might well have been a lot more than that as well."



So there you have it. Republicans have gone from blaming the Obama administration and IRS staffers for targeting tea partiers to double-negative-laced non-concession concessions like Roy Blunt's. (That said, Republicans aren't calling off the hounds quite yet (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/federal_government/irs-bolos-raise-new-questions-about-political-targeting-uproar/2013/07/04/e4988482-de77-11e2-b797-cbd4cb13f9c6_story_1.html): A spokeswoman for Rep. Dave Camp (R-Mich.), who chairs the House ways and means committee, says committee members will continue to "gather the facts" and "follow them wherever they lead us.")





http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/07/irs-tea-party-congress-no-politics-progressive

[boutons_deux]

Conservative Groups Lied To The IRS By Failing To Report Their Political Spending

There are myriad ways to lie, but one particularly devious act of mendacity is willfully swearing a false oath, or falsifying an affirmation to tell the truth whether spoken or in writing concerning matters material to an official proceeding and technically it is perjury. Perjury is considered a serious offense because it usurps the power of the courts resulting in miscarriages of justice and, in America, Federal law classifies perjury as a felony providing a prison sentence of up to five years. The recent furor over the Internal Revenue Service scrutinizing applications for social welfare, tax-exempt organizations, has revealed that the IRS was doing its due diligence in screening political activists’ applications, and one aspect going unnoticed is the level of perjury most of the conservative groups are guilty of just filing false declarations. However, many of the groups are also guilty of perjury for failing to report, or underreporting, their political spending on tax forms filed with the IRS.

The rash of conservative political activist groups posing as social welfare nonprofits are forbidden from having political campaign activity as their primary purpose, and it is the IRS methodology of how they measured such activity while screening the groups’ social welfare applications that has Republicans in an uproar over the IRS’s treatment of patriot and teabagger groups. There are very specific questions asking for details on any campaign spending on forms social welfare non-profits are required to file with the IRS, and many conservative groups illegally use the social welfare designation to conceal dark money being injected into political campaigns. Some groups are reporting political donations to the Federal Election Commission (FEC), but to maintain their “social welfare” designation they are deliberately lying to the IRS and committing perjury by signing tax forms claiming they did not spend any money on political campaigns.

In just one example likely out of thousands, a dark money group, A Better America Now, based a couple of miles off the beach near Jacksonville, Florida promised on its 2011 application (http://www.propublica.org/documents/item/539896-1024-2012-a-better-america-now-inc) for “social welfare” tax-exempt status with the Internal Revenue Service it did not plan to spend any money on elections. In the last election cycle, A Better America Now reported (http://www.propublica.org/documents/item/717138-year-end-report-13960583326) to the FEC it spent about $65,000 for mailers and TV advertising in a highly contested race for Texas’ 23rd congressional district seat.

However, in its tax return (http://www.propublica.org/documents/item/717251-better-america-now-2011-12-990s#document/p11/a107124) recently filed with the IRS, the group claimed it did not spend any money on “direct or indirect political campaign activities” even though return was signed “under the penalty of perjury” by the group’s president (http://www.thefenwickgroup.com/partners_portrie.html) and accounting firm (http://thelbagroup.com/) preparing the tax return. Apparently, it is a common occurrence with conservative groups with tax-exempt “social welfare” designation to inject dark money into political campaigns to influence elections without revealing their donors. It is the only reason the groups seek “social welfare” designation in the first place and why Republicans are attempting to quash IRS scrutiny into conservative dark money groups.

It is not the first time A Better America Now, a Florida-based outfit, has injected anonymous money into Republican campaigns in different parts of the country, and according to Craig Holman of Public Citizen, “This type of inaccurate reporting by electioneering nonprofit groups has a long history, and it is rooted in the fact that the IRS almost never holds these groups accountable for such false declarations.” However, it is not just “inaccurate reporting” or “false declarations,” it is blatant perjury and it presents two prescient questions that demand an answer; why are these groups allowed to apply for or keep their social welfare designation, and why are they not prosecuted for perjury and imprisoned for “up to five years” as required by Federal law? In the A Better America Now case, it is not that there is a question of whether the dark money social welfare group lied to the IRS on its 501(c) application, because the contradiction between the FEC filing and 501(c) application is blatant. It is also obvious the group deliberately omitted the money it spent on a direct political campaign in Texas and signed, “under penalty of perjury,” a Federal document swearing “the statements are true, correct, and complete” and filed with the Internal Revenue Service.

http://www.politicususa.com/2013/07/05/conservative-groups-lied-irs-failing-report-political-spending.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+politicususa%2FfJAl+%28Politi cus+USA+%29

[boutons_deux]

GOP-led House seeks to punish IRS with budget cuts

The GOP-controlled House unveiled slashing cuts to the budget of the Internal Revenue Service on Tuesday, punishing the beleaguered agency after it targeted tea party groups and other nonprofits seeking tax-exempt status.

The agency's 2014 budget would be cut by $3 billion, or 24 percent below levels approved in March. Also, 10 percent of its budget for tax enforcement would be fenced off until the IRS implements recommendations by an agency watchdog designed to prevent further abuses.

The IRS cuts come after a wave of bad publicity for the agency including questionable spending on conferences like a lavish $4.1 million event in 2010 that included a "Star Trek" video parody and a $17,000 payment to a motivational speaker who was a painter.President Barack Obama had requested a $1 billion increase for the IRS.

"Right now I can't think of a federal agency in a worse position to ask for more money," said Rep. Kevin Brady, R-Texas.

The Appropriations Committee also revealed cuts to NASA, White House salaries, and the Securities and Exchange Commission. The full House took up a $30.4 billion measure funding the Energy Department and water projects that is about $3 billion below levels enacted earlier this year. Democrats protested cuts to clean and renewable energy programs.

Democrats controlling a Senate panel, meanwhile, went in a wholly opposite direction in giving a $1.3 billion increase to the IRS, the agency chiefly responsible to implement Obama's signature health care law.

At issue are the annual spending bills funding the day-to-day operations of federal agencies. The GOP-controlled House and Democratic-led Senate are acting as if on different planets, with the Senate ignoring deep automatic spending cuts and the House promising even more punishing cuts to domestic programs while restoring cuts to the Pentagon.

The House is drafting spending bills in line with a $967 billion "cap" required by automatic cuts that took effect in March after Washington failed to agree on an alternative mix of tax increases and cuts elsewhere in the $3.5 trillion federal budget. The Senate is writing bills to a $1.058 trillion cap, almost a full 10 percent higher. But the House GOP cuts to domestic programs are greatly magnified by a $41 billion shift from nondefense programs like NASA, education and research on renewable energy to the Pentagon.

The result are night-and-day differences between the House and Senate spending bills illustrated most dramatically by a $164 billion Senate measure unveiled Tuesday by liberal Democrat Tom Harkin of Iowa. The measure, which funds education, health and labor programs, is a full 26 percent more generous to such programs than an as-yet-unreleased House version.

So even as advocates for the poor worry about budget cuts forcing poor preschoolers from Head Start, the Senate measure promises to increase the program by $1.6 billion or about 20 percent. Health research would win a small increase, as would Title I grants to help educate disadvantaged school children.

Republicans say the Senate bills are filled with empty promises. Even if they were enacted over GOP opposition, they would be subject to across-the-board cuts known as sequestration that would bring them down to the $967 billion level embraced by Republicans. Sequestration is required because Congress and Obama have failed to follow up a 2011 budget pact with deficit cuts other than a bitterly fought tax increase on upper-bracket earners.

Democrats say that Republicans are offering empty promises as well — to defense hawks upset by sequestration. The House GOP increases to the Pentagon would be automatically rolled back through sequestration, as would Senate Democrats' efforts to increase domestic programs.

By contrast, the House measures revealed Tuesday are laced with painful cuts. While the FBI is exempted, NASA would absorb an almost $1 billion cut below 2013 levels. Spending on federal buildings would be cut $2.4 billion below Obama's request and the U.S. Marshals Service, the federal prison system and the Drug Enforcement Administration would also have to absorb cuts.

"At some point, there is no 'doing more with less,'" said Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla. "There is only less."

Absent a broader agreement on the budget, the rival chambers of Congress are on a collision course facing a potential government shutdown when current-year funding runs out on Sept. 30. A shutdown is unlikely, but avoiding one would require a stopgap funding measure to keep the government running after that date.

http://mobile.sfgate.com/sfchron/db_41685/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=XF30EIpS&full=true#display

"bad publicity" ? "further abuses" ? :lol

like Benghazi, IRS "scandal" was totally fabricated by Fox and Repugs.

Repugs KNOW their base is totally fucked up stupid which allows them to get away with such bullshit. See it tonight on Fox Repug Propaganda network. :lol

[boutons_deux]

Conservative Think Tank Trolls State Agencies Looking For IRS-Like Scandal


A conservative public policy think tank in Washington state is on the hunt for partisan bias in state government, filing public records requests for government email and other documents that contain terms like “libertarian,” “hicks,” “redneck,” “teabagger” “fundamentalist,” and “gun nut.”

The Freedom Foundation (http://myfreedomfoundation.com/) — an educational, non-partisan, not-for-profit that promotes free markets and limited government — filed public records requests on May 15 with the Department of Ecology, Department of Labor and Industries, Pugent Sound Partnership and State Department of Revenue, according to the group. The group requested all relevant documents from January 1, 2010 through May 15, 2013.

TPM obtained a copy of a Department of Ecology email to its employees directing them how to comply with the public records request. The full list of search terms in the Department of Ecology request includes: Tea Party, Conservative, Freedom Foundation, Libertarian, Liberty, Redneck, Small Government, Hicks, Teabagger, Racist, Far Right, Right Wing, Christian, Fundamentalist, Catholic, NRA, Gun Nut and Mormon.

Glen Morgan, the property rights director for the Freedom Foundation, told TPM on Tuesday that the other three public records requests were similar to the Department of Ecology request, although each was tailored to make the search more efficient for the specific agency. The Department for Ecology, for instance, does not have to include electronic records that include the word “conservative,” if it pertains to anything about conservation, he said. Morgan said he expects the requests could yield about 50,000 pages.

The requests are a result, Morgan said, of revelations in May that the IRS had targeted political groups applying for tax-exempt status for closer evaluation by screening for key words typically associated with conservative organizations (although later revelations indicated the IRS was using search terms oriented toward progressive and non-partisan groups, too).

“We are not trying to abuse the agencies,” :lol Morgan said. “We were kind of interested in seeing if [the IRS targeting] :lol was going on here.”

Freedom Foundation has started to get some documents back, although Morgan said they haven’t received anything “earth shattering yet,” but if they do they “would make it as public as we possibly can” and “encourage the government to behave responsibly.” :lol

“This is not uncommon for us,” he added. “If we hear a story like that, we like to verify what is going on locally.”

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/07/washington-state-political-group-works-to-uncover-irs-like-scandal-in-state.php

"targeting" :lol

[boutons_deux]

Issa’s IRS Witch Hunt Continues To Unravel In Latest Hearing

On Thursday afternoon, House Oversight Committee chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA) led a seventh hearing (http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/07/18/19542120-gop-tries-to-keep-pressure-on-irs-controversy?lite) on the IRS’ so-called “systematic delay and scrutiny” of Tea Party 501(c)(4) applications between 2010 and 2012.


During his opening remarks, Issa emphasized the significance of not jumping to conclusions without valid evidence.
Issa, however, has spent the past two months doing just that.

when pressed to answer if had ever received direct orders from Washington IRS officials, or had knowledge of White House involvement or political motivation on behalf of any IRS or White House official, he acknowledged that this was not the case. Hull testified that he never received direct orders from Washington IRS officials, and never had any knowledge of White House involvement or political motivation on behalf of any officials.

not a single Tea Party organization was denied tax-exempt status; the only 501(c)(4) applicant whose request for tax-exempt status was recently denied was progressive group, the Maine chapter of Emerge America. (http://www.nationalmemo.com/the-tea-party-the-irs-scandal-and-the-actual-facts-of-the-case/)

http://www.nationalmemo.com/issas-irs-witch-hunt-continues-to-unravel-in-latest-hearing-2/

:lol Fucking Issa, fucking Repugs, How Do They Fuck Up? Let us count the ways! :lol

targeting! :lol

[boobie4three]

Noonan: A Bombshell in the IRS Scandal
Updated July 18, 2013, 7:02 p.m. ET

The IRS scandal was connected this week not just to the Washington office—that had been established—but to the office of the chief counsel.

That is a bombshell—such a big one that it managed to emerge in spite of an unfocused, frequently off-point congressional hearing in which some members seemed to have accidentally woken up in the middle of a committee room, some seemed unaware of the implications of what their investigators had uncovered, one pretended that the investigation should end if IRS workers couldn't say the president had personally called and told them to harass his foes, and one seemed to be holding a filibuster on Pakistan.

Still, what landed was a bombshell. And Democrats know it. Which is why they are so desperate to make the investigation go away. They know, as Republicans do, that the chief counsel of the IRS is one of only two Obama political appointees in the entire agency.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324448104578614220949743916.html?m od=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

[scott]

A political movement based solely around the idea that they hate being taxed has their applications for tax-exempt status reviewed at a higher level of scrutiny?

BOMBSHELL.

[boutons_deux]

Noonan: A Bombshell in the IRS Scandal
Updated July 18, 2013, 7:02 p.m. ET

The IRS scandal was connected this week not just to the Washington office—that had been established—but to the office of the chief counsel.

That is a bombshell—such a big one that it managed to emerge in spite of an unfocused, frequently off-point congressional hearing in which some members seemed to have accidentally woken up in the middle of a committee room, some seemed unaware of the implications of what their investigators had uncovered, one pretended that the investigation should end if IRS workers couldn't say the president had personally called and told them to harass his foes, and one seemed to be holding a filibuster on Pakistan.

Still, what landed was a bombshell. And Democrats know it. Which is why they are so desperate to make the investigation go away. They know, as Republicans do, that the chief counsel of the IRS is one of only two Obama political appointees in the entire agency.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324448104578614220949743916.html?m od=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

Murdoch's WSJ? same shit as Fox Repug propaganda network

Noonan? inflammable bitch :lol

The lawyer is a Dem political appointee, he can't do his job fairly?

NONE, NOT ONE, of the fraudulent right-wing political groups were denied tax-exempt status. THAT's the real scandal.