IRS Admits They Targeted Conservative Groups

[Falvlun]

I think the uptick in request were from majority conservative groups. Personally I'd have a problem if they weren't investigating these groups and any other group requesting tax exempt status. I don't care which side of the isle their from.... And like I said....I believe the majority of the request were granted.....

From what I've read, actually none of them were denied their status as a result of these policies.

The only group that was denied status was actually a liberal group.

 

[Revoltingest]

I think the uptick in request were from majority conservative groups. Personally I'd have a problem if they weren't investigating these groups and any other group requesting tax exempt status. I don't care which side of the isle their from.... And like I said....I believe the majority of the request were granted.....

Yes, you did say that.
But I see a different issue, ie, that the very act of auditing for political purpose is harassment, even if it results in no adverse action.

"strawman"......

I only asked a question (which you didn't answer).
A "straw man" is an argument against a created issue, rather than the one at hand.
I really wanted an answer because it would clarify your views for me, but if you believe
that I didn't, then you should only accuse me of asking a rhetorical question.

 

[Revoltingest]

Who needs to give it a rest? Everyone in this thread now clearly knows that you weren't talking about Watergate but the IRS scandal and that I made a simple mistake. I've even said to go back through and read IRS scandal in my posts rather than Watergate. You are the only one still refusing to address the issue and instead are carping on a mistake that has been fixed to death already.

Sigh....you become abusive because of your own mistake....
but instead of an apology, I get a post like this. Tsk, tsk.
I'd been addressing the issue....just not getting much cooperation.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

From what I've read, actually none of them were denied their status as a result of these policies.

The only group that was denied status was actually a liberal group.

That puts things in perspective for me.....Like I said..back in 2004 it was the NAACP and, I think, a southern Liberal leaning church/pastor the IRS had their eye on. So far I'm not seeing a problem here.....

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Yes, you did say that.
But I see a different issue, ie, that the very act of auditing for political purpose is harassment, even if it results in no adverse action.

And I don't.... considering these groups were applying for tax exempt status that...on the surface NONE (conservative or liberal) should qualify for....It all hinges on the word ("Primary") in the criteria. But since they're obviously political groups and not a social welfare organization...I'd say IRS had every right to scrutinize......so far there's really no meat on this bone....

 

[Falvlun]

Sigh....you become abusive because of your own mistake....
but instead of an apology, I get a post like this. Tsk, tsk.
I'd been addressing the issue....just not getting much cooperation.

Apologize for what? If you get an answer on a test wrong, you own up to your mistake. You don't apologize to the teacher. I owned up, end of story.

I'll tell you what: I'll apologize for my mistake if you apologize for refusing to actually address the issue.

 

[Revoltingest]

And I don't.... considering these groups were applying for tax exempt status that...on the surface NONE (conservative or liberal) should qualify for....It all hinges on the word ("Primary") in the criteria. But since they're obviously political groups and not a social welfare organization...I'd say IRS had every right to scrutinize......so far there's really no meat on this bone....

We'll agree to disagree.

 

[dust1n]

I'm sure anyone who wants to become a 501(c) (4) can do so if they qualify. The real issue is that the IRS shouldn't base audits upon partisan concerns, as Nixon had them do, & as they are now found to be doing. The tax code is just part of the legal picture of government being able to hinder free speech thru back door means, ie, legal harassment. Campaign laws have made it harder for grass roots organizations to legally operate.
Cato Supreme Court Review - Roger Pilon - Google Books
Campaign Finance Reform's War On Political Freedom (Elitists Seeks To Throttle Grassroots Alert)
I don't want Dems or Pubs (or any other party) being able to steer political discourse by such means. Political corruption shouldn't be about whether we care about the targeted groups/individuals or not, since power shifts between the Big Two, making everyone potentially vulnerable.

I'm all for campaign finance reform, but I'm not sure what it has to do with this case?

What legal harassment did any Tea Party organization see?

"Since the problem was discovered sometime last year, the IRS has approved about 130 of the original 300 applications, and about 25 have been withdrawn. The rest remain pending, and no application has been denied."

IRS apologizes for targeting conservative groups



I mean.. if they were looking for applications with "Tea Party" or "patriot," and I may be going on a huge limb here, but maybe since there were 300 applications in one year from groups that have no apparent function outside of political campaigning, I don't see a problem with auditing political groups to ensure they aren't using donations for political support.


Stories are interesting though... I'll have to shift through the Cato institute study later.

The other story though...

"
In February 2006, Norm Feck learned that the city of Parker, Colorado was thinking about annexing his neighborhood, Parker North. Feck attended a meeting on the annexation, realized that it would mean more bureaucracy, and concluded that it wouldn’t be in Parker North residents’ interest. Together with five other Parker North locals, he wrote letters to the editor, handed out information sheets, formed an Internet discussion group, and printed up anti-annexation yard signs, which soon began sprouting throughout the neighborhood.



That’s when annexation supporters took action—not with their own public campaign, but with a legal complaint against Feck and his friends for violating Colorado’s campaign finance laws. The suit also threatened anyone who had contacted Feck’s group about the annexation, or put up one of their yard signs, with “investigation, scrutinization, and sanctions for Campaign Finance violations.” Apparently the anti-annexation activists hadn’t registered with the state, or filled out the required paperwork disclosing their expenditures on time. Steep fines, increasing on a daily basis, were possible. The case remains in litigation."


This is annoying because I don't know what he is talking about. What campaign finance laws? Who made the legal complaint? Who are the "pro-annexation" supporters? None of this is even given before we go enter a history that is ultimately pointless in regards to understanding how campaign finance effects the gentlemen in Colorado.

 

[Revoltingest]

Apologize for what? If you get an answer on a test wrong, you own up to your mistake. You don't apologize to the teacher. I owned up, end of story.

I'll tell you what: I'll apologize for my mistake if you apologize for refusing to actually address the issue.

You erroneously accused me of dishonesty because of a mistake you made.
I just don't wish to continue discussing the issue with you, for which I owe no apology.
You will do what you think appropriate.

 

[Falvlun]

You erroneously accused me of dishonesty because of a mistake you made.
I just don't wish to continue discussing the issue with you, for which I owe no apology.
You will do what you think appropriate.

Give me the post number and the quote where you claim this happened. I will determine if it requires an apology. But, seeing as you tend to squall ad hominen any time I disagree with you, I won't be holding my breath.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm all for campaign finance reform, but I'm not sure what it has to do with this case?

I was introducing the larger pattern of government using its many arms to quell opposing speech.
Perhaps that was too distracting from the OP.
You've been thoughtful & civil, but now I'm more inclined to go out & mow some lawns now.

 

[Falvlun]

Since I'm still legitimately interested in the question, does anyone else think that it is misleading and/or inaccurate to equate Nixon's IRS scandal with the current IRS issue? Post 15 contains the reasons why I think it is BS. If anyone thinks it is a legitimate comparison, what are your reasons?

 

[Alceste]

Yes, it was a non-partisan program targeting conservative groups
for audits & leaking the info to left leaning political groups.

Once again, not an audit.

 

[Alceste]

Sigh....you become abusive because of your own mistake....
but instead of an apology, I get a post like this. Tsk, tsk.
I'd been addressing the issue....just not getting much cooperation.

When are we getting your apology for continually claiming conservative groups were audited long after I corrected you?

 

[Shermana]

Tea Partiers and Tax Exemption: The Real I.R.S. Scandal : The New Yorker

Considering they aren't actually providing any actual charity work and are totally about politics, why is this a problem? I wish they'd go after right leaning "churches" too.

 

[Revoltingest]

When are we getting your apology for continually claiming conservative groups were audited long after I corrected you?

Correction?
Hah!
What I post & what you read are seldom even in the same county.

 

[Alceste]

Correction?
Hah!
What I post & what you read are seldom even in the same county.

I take it that's a no. Carry on misrepresenting the issue then.

 

[Revoltingest]

I take it that's a no. Carry on misrepresenting the issue then.

Tis an ironic barb you wield there, given the generous diplomacy in my last post to you.
In a spirit of peace, I didn't point out how you're so prone to making up quotations ad hoc.
(My magnimity is so lost on some.)

 

[Shermana]

Apparently Mitch Mcconnell used to be "deeply suspicious" of these groups in question and their 501c4 status before he did an about face when it was the Dems doing the suspicions.

Mitch McConnell Used To Be Suspicious Of 501(c)(4) Groups Targeted By IRS (UPDATE)

UPDATE: 6:25 p.m. -- Asked Tuesday about his earlier concern that social welfare nonprofits were abusing their tax-exempt status and whether the IRS should crack down in a more evenhanded fashion, McConnell did not answer, instead suggesting that Americans should be able to spend whatever they want to criticize politicians.
"As I've said consistently for over two decades ... you have a right to engage in the political debate in this country," McConnell said. "People are entitled not only to petition the Congress for redress of grievances under the First Amendment, but to say whatever they choose to in criticism or praise about any of us."
He cut off a follow-up question asking whether people should be granted tax-exempt status to make those grievances.

 

[Meow Mix]

*strums a guitar peacefully*

Koombayah.......

Oh wait, if I take the role of the peace hippie everyone will just attack me instead. D'oh!