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.
@ Boutons trying to spin this like nothing untoward happened when the IRS already admitted it.
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/2013/05/19/185206...o?sc=17&f=1001
CC as eloquent (speechless and coy and slapped) as TB
All Y'All Bubbas Can't Handle The Truth (but all y'all do very well with lies and slander)
lol at boutons obsession with me.
I must've left a mark.
TB
Stop Stalking me!
humf...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?
The whole 501(c)as an en y, needs to be tossed.
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 cir stances” 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/si...in-irs-scandal
"Bring Back Ken Starr": NYT's Bill Keller Joins Fox's Campaign For A Special Prosecutor
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/05...ins-fox/194169
Benn Swann
ooooohh
Dude put it on this fool
In IRS (fabricated, non-) 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 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, 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 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 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_i..._is_ignorance/
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.
Lois Lerner Shows Why Obama Needs to Get Rid of All Remaining Bush Appointees
http://www.politicususa.com/lois-ler...ysterical.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.”
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.
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.
What's wrong Dan? Crying because before 2009, liberals were spending equal or more than conservatives, and now conservatives are spending more?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.
Were you complaining about liberals spending more before the change in law?
Proof the IRS Didn't Target Just Conservatives
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...atives/276536/
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
