Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Regardless... you haven't answered my earlier question, so I'll restate:
Had this occurred during a Republican administration, whereas this time, the targeting were specfically liberal groups.... what's your response?

Although the question was not directed at me I want to answer it. They are somewhat justified. The groups are blatantly political, and thus should not be tax exempt.

Well, do you consider Media Matters blatantly political?

No idea. Just a second, I have to look up what media matters is.
Edit: Looked at their main page. Just from that I'd say yes.

No worries.

I know who they are... and they've been exempted from all those extra attentions. There are hundreds of organizations just like this one.

See my point?

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Regardless... you haven't answered my earlier question, so I'll restate:
Had this occurred during a Republican administration, whereas this time, the targeting were specfically liberal groups.... what's your response?

Although the question was not directed at me I want to answer it. They are somewhat justified. The groups are blatantly political, and thus should not be tax exempt.

Well, do you consider Media Matters blatantly political?

No idea. Just a second, I have to look up what media matters is.
Edit: Looked at their main page. Just from that I'd say yes.

No worries.

I know who they are... and they've been exempted from all those extra attentions. There are hundreds of organizations just like this one.

See my point?

Yes, I just think it's not quite as bad as Watergate.

That's fair...

It's just that, if true, the abuse of power and lying about it to the American people are serious forms of corruption. And it's a shame that the media refuse to call it for what it is...

 whembly wrote:

The point that Seb was missing was that under these proposed rules, activities such as candidate forums, get out the vote efforts, and voter registration would now be considered “political activity” for 501(c)(4) groups.

Per that argumet there would be tons of negatively affected left-leaning groups, as GOTV and voter registration are historical cornerstones of left-leaning 501(c)(4)s. So, at best you're providing evidence that your outrage is based on ignorance.

Of course the proposed regulations wouldn't actually do what you seem to believe they would do. Rather, the proposed regulations would prevent 501(c)(4)s from claiming candidate related political activity as being in interests of social welfare. This wouldn't prevent them from engaging in candidate related political activity, but it would mean that it would not count towards determining whether or not a given 501(c)(4) was dedicated to social welfare under the "primarily" standard. As such, any given 501(c)(4) could engage in all the things you mentioned, just not too much of the first one.

 whembly wrote:

Groups like the Chamber of Commerce and Unions (under the same type) CAN engage in these activities as it's still kosher.

Again, chambers of commerce and unions are not the same kind of 501(c) organizations, nor are chambers of commerce generally pro-Democrat so referring to the fact that proposed IRS rule changes do not affect them is immaterial to your argument.

Dogma put it brilliantly.

And my answer on weather I would be outraged if a Republican President was in office while the IRS did it I would cast just as much judgement as I am now: None.

I don't think you understand how much the President can do when it comes to the Federal Bureaucracy, or more aptly put, ever has time to do.

Whembly, you of all people should recognize that scandal based media is destructive, hell, the number one reason the public has lost interest in Bengazhi is because all the news organizations burnt out any interest anyone could possibly have at this point.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

The point that Seb was missing was that under these proposed rules, activities such as candidate forums, get out the vote efforts, and voter registration would now be considered “political activity” for 501(c)(4) groups.

Per that argumet there would be tons of negatively affected left-leaning groups, as GOTV and voter registration are historical cornerstones of left-leaning 501(c)(4)s. So, at best you're providing evidence that your outrage is based on ignorance.

Of course the proposed regulations wouldn't actually do what you seem to believe they would do. Rather, the proposed regulations would prevent 501(c)(4)s from claiming candidate related political activity as being in interests of social welfare. This wouldn't prevent them from engaging in candidate related political activity, but it would mean that it would not count towards determining whether or not a given 501(c)(4) was dedicated to social welfare under the "primarily" standard. As such, any given 501(c)(4) could engage in all the things you mentioned, just not too much of the first one.

 whembly wrote:

Groups like the Chamber of Commerce and Unions (under the same type) CAN engage in these activities as it's still kosher.

Again, chambers of commerce and unions are not the same kind of 501(c) organizations, nor are chambers of commerce generally pro-Democrat so referring to the fact that proposed IRS rule changes do not affect them is immaterial to your argument.

You're still not getting it...

o.O

The 501(c)(4)s are permitted to engage in the political process and in political discourse... these activities have a clear role in promoting civic engagement and social welfare.

The proposed rule would amend current regulations by indicating that the promotion of social welfare does not include these type of activites... it's like change the rules of the game, while the game is in progress.

It's an attempt to legitimized the IRS actions that started this whole ordeal.

The person who makes 10 bucks an hour (way less than they should for how boring this work is) at the local IRS office more than not is just another person trying not to screw up.

So unless you can show me a case you could take to court I cannot get any more upset that I would be at time's disposition to march onwards.

Bureaucratic issues did not start with the Obama administration, and trust me, they will not end with it.

and I say take it to court because then you need evidence and facts. You need testimony. You need probable cause, you need a lot more than just an article that amounts to "He said she said".

If you don't think there is enough evidence to hold up in court (Read: hold up to scrutiny) then don't bug other people with it, because if you can't prove it then all it is, is political posturing for poll numbers.

 whembly wrote:

You're still not getting it...

I get it, but I'm also telling you that your argument is bad because you're wrong about the effects of the proposed regulations and ignorant of how 501(c) works at a regulatory level.

 whembly wrote:

The 501(c)(4)s are permitted to engage in the political process and in political discourse... these activities have a clear role in promoting civic engagement and social welfare.

The proposed rule would amend current regulations by indicating that the promotion of social welfare does not include these type of activites... it's like change the rules of the game, while the game is in progress.

501(c)(4)s can only engage in the political process if it is in the interest of social welfare, or not their primary purpose. The proposed rules only indicate that candidate specific activity will no longer be considered in the interest of social welfare and therefore will not be allowed as evidence of the pursuit of social welfare.

Again, these changes do not prohibit 501(c)(4)s from engaging in candidate specific activity, or prohibit them from engaging in the likes of GOTV operations. They just indicate that candidate specific activity will not be considered as activity aimed at the promotion of social welfare, so organizations which primarily engage themselves in such activity will not be granted 501(c)(4) status, or will have an application for such status denied.

 whembly wrote:

It's an attempt to legitimized the IRS actions that started this whole ordeal.

No it isn't. The proposed regulation changes have nothing at all to do with IRS malfeasance, and would make it more difficult for non-malfeasance related targeting occur.

You are, quite literally, upset because a federal agency is trying to fix a problem you were upset by.

I'm don't believe we're seeing eye-to-eye...

So, organizations like Media Matters Action Network MMAN, a sister org to Media Matters For America, that’s tax-exempt under the current 501(c)(4) of the IRS code.

The same sort of organization, on the opposite end of the political spectrum, as the tea-party groups that were harassed by the IRS.

How is it that the conservative/tea party groups need special scrutiny for possibly engaging in political activities when one of the most notorious Democratic talking-point clearinghouses on the planet got their 501(c)(4) status rubber-stamped?

Who’s more likely to subvert purpose of this (c)(4) section, a tea-party group with 20 members that might “indirectly participate” in a specific campaign somewhere or a large organization that reliably serves the national messaging needs of one of the two major parties?

Unless you consider the destruction of Fox News and Glen Beck & Crews "social welfare"... MMAN obliterates the intents of those regulations.

You seem to think I'm only crying about that it's singling out the tea party groups.

I just want the IRS to equally enforce said regulations.

The problem here is Whembly is that there is not enough proof at all for any of this to hold up to any scrutiny.

Dogma has spent a few posts explaining how the IRS is ironically doing what they should in the circumstances permitted.

If your so eager for your day in court for things like this and Bengazhi you need a better argument than you think something unjust is possibly happening/happened.

The Government's job is to protect people, to work towards creating a future we can proud of, and to create the basis for Civilization here and now into the future.

The Government's job is not to justify itself every time someone brings forth an issue that not only doesn't have enough evidence to fly in court but not enough to fly in a Wargaming websites off topic forum.

 whembly wrote:
I'm don't believe we're seeing eye-to-eye...

That's because you keep changing your argument, and I am continually forced to bring you back on topic. For example...

 whembly wrote:

So, organizations like Media Matters Action Network MMAN, a sister org to Media Matters For America, that’s tax-exempt under the current 501(c)(4) of the IRS code.

The same sort of organization, on the opposite end of the political spectrum, as the tea-party groups that were harassed by the IRS.

...we were not discussing MMAN. We were discussing proposed changes to IRS regulations regarding 501(c)(4) organizations. Changes which would also impact MMAN, indicating that your argument regarding the nature of the proposed changes is off-base.

 whembly wrote:

You seem to think I'm only crying about that it's singling out the tea party groups.

I never made such an argument, or anything approaching one.

 Alexzandvar wrote:
The problem here is Whembly is that there is not enough proof at all for any of this to hold up to any scrutiny.

Dogma has spent a few posts explaining how the IRS is ironically doing what they should in the circumstances permitted.

If your so eager for your day in court for things like this and Bengazhi you need a better argument than you think something unjust is possibly happening/happened.

The Government's job is to protect people, to work towards creating a future we can proud of, and to create the basis for Civilization here and now into the future.

The Government's job is not to justify itself every time someone brings forth an issue that not only doesn't have enough evidence to fly in court but not enough to fly in a Wargaming websites off topic forum.

You just refused to see it.

And it is ABSOLUTELY the Government's job to justify itself. Otherwise, you're living in a Banana Republic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:
I'm don't believe we're seeing eye-to-eye...

That's because you keep changing your argument, and I am continually forced to bring you back on topic. For example...

Not really.

 whembly wrote:

So, organizations like Media Matters Action Network MMAN, a sister org to Media Matters For America, that’s tax-exempt under the current 501(c)(4) of the IRS code.

The same sort of organization, on the opposite end of the political spectrum, as the tea-party groups that were harassed by the IRS.

...we were not discussing MMAN. We were discussing proposed changes to IRS regulations regarding 501(c)(4) organizations. Changes which would also impact MMAN, indicating that your argument regarding the nature of the proposed changes is off-base.

Sigh... you refused to addressed it.

The proposed rulings, if implemented, would render any charges of malfeasance against the IRS moot.

THATS. THE. FETHING. POINT.

It's an attempt to sweep this issue under the rug.

 whembly wrote:

You seem to think I'm only crying about that it's singling out the tea party groups.

I never made such an argument, or anything approaching one.

Oh come on. From day numero uno, you've taken the IRS' side.

Regardless, you're right about one thing about the proposed rule. It'll help reduce wide-open interpretation of qualifying for (c)(4). It's just a naked attempt to retroactively absolve the IRS' action.

 whembly wrote:

 Alexzandvar wrote:
The problem here is Whembly is that there is not enough proof at all for any of this to hold up to any scrutiny.

Dogma has spent a few posts explaining how the IRS is ironically doing what they should in the circumstances permitted.

If your so eager for your day in court for things like this and Bengazhi you need a better argument than you think something unjust is possibly happening/happened.

The Government's job is to protect people, to work towards creating a future we can proud of, and to create the basis for Civilization here and now into the future.

The Government's job is not to justify itself every time someone brings forth an issue that not only doesn't have enough evidence to fly in court but not enough to fly in a Wargaming websites off topic forum.

You just refused to see it.

And it is ABSOLUTELY the Government's job to justify itself. Otherwise, you're living in a Banana Republic.

Have you ever traveled to a "Banana Republic"? Have you ever lived in one? Do you even know what we share a thing called NATO with countries that don't have constitutions like ours yet still operate just fine.

the fact people live and govern freely outside the United States is not a hard thing to understand. What I don't think you get is that innocent until proven guilty isn't just a thing that applies only to individuals.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And if there really was enough evidence Whembly then there would be a serious case in the courts about it.

 Alexzandvar wrote:

And if there really was enough evidence Whembly then there would be a serious case in the courts about it.

Interestingly that you said that... because, there is an active case on this.
http://media.aclj.org/pdf/second-amended-complaint-filed-redacted.pdf

I said a serious court case, not a coalition of fringe groups getting together and demanding there be a trial despite providing no more, nay less information you have in this very thread.

I'm a fairly open minded guy, but at this point this is just another Bureaucracy slip that fringe groups latch onto (like Rush Limbaugh) to attempt to push the "Us VS Them" narrative

 Alexzandvar wrote:
I said a serious court case, not a coalition of fringe groups getting together and demanding there be a trial despite providing no more, nay less information you have in this very thread.

I'm a fairly open minded guy, but at this point this is just another Bureaucracy slip that fringe groups latch onto (like Rush Limbaugh) to attempt to push the "Us VS Them" narrative

Do read that petition. Just for once...

 whembly wrote:

Sigh... you refused to addressed it.

The proposed rulings, if implemented, would render any charges of malfeasance against the IRS moot.

THATS. THE. FETHING. POINT.

It's an attempt to sweep this issue under the rug.

That's the first time in this thread that you argued these changes would render any charges of malfeasance against the IRS moot. So you are changing your argument yet again, as your position previously turned on a claim that the proposed changes was another instance of the IRS targeting conservative NPOs.

That aside, how would these changes render any charges of IRS malfeasance moot? They do not immunize anyone from prosecution, prevent any given employee from being fired, disallow lawsuits against the IRS, or prevent the public from continuing to be upset about preexisting instances of IRS malfeasance.

 whembly wrote:

Oh come on. From day numero uno, you've taken the IRS' side.

I'm not on any particular side other than my own, and in my opinion much of the criticism of the IRS is unfair, or was unfair given the information available at the time; I have consistently argued to this effect.

What I have not done in this thread, or ever (to wit), is argue that you are "...only crying about that it's singling out the tea party groups." Please do not put words in my mouth.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Sigh... you refused to addressed it.

The proposed rulings, if implemented, would render any charges of malfeasance against the IRS moot.

THATS. THE. FETHING. POINT.

It's an attempt to sweep this issue under the rug.

That's the first time in this thread that you believed these changes would render any charges of malfeasance against the IRS moot. So you are changing your argument yet again, as your position previously turned on a claim that the proposed changes was another instance of the IRS targeting conservative NPOs.

Uh... no. I believe conservative groups were unfairly targeted.

The new proposed regulation legitimizes this targeting... wouldn't you agree?

Let's look at the current regulation for (c)(4):

To be tax-exempt as a social welfare organization described in Internal Revenue Code (IRC) section 501(c)(4), an organization must not be organized for profit and must be operated exclusively to promote social welfare…

The promotion of social welfare does not include direct or indirect participation or intervention in political campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office. However, a section 501(c)(4) social welfare organization may engage in some political activities, so long as that is not its primary activity.

Can be ambiguous... no? This puts such determination on the IRS' hand to potentially engage in these endeavors.

The new proposal would:

define things such as distributing voter guides, registering people to vote and running ads that mention elected officials close to Election Day as “candidate-related political activities.” The rule would substantially roll back the level of political activity open to “social welfare” groups.

So, on the one hand, you had organizations, under (c)(4), were granted great latitude to engage in elections, which many groups from all political persuasions, have increasingly exercised in recent years.

On the other hand, this new proposal would significantly change the ways in which tax-exempt organizations are used for political purposes... which traditionally the IRS gave zero feths about.

Why?

That aside, how would these changes render any charges of IRS malfeasance moot? They do not immunize anyone from prosecution, prevent any given employee from being fired, disallow lawsuits against the IRS, or prevent the public from continuing to be upset about preexisting instances of IRS malfeasance.

Because then it would be easier to defend those actions politically if the new rules are in placed.

 whembly wrote:

Oh come on. From day numero uno, you've taken the IRS' side.

I'm not on any particular side other than my own, and in my opinion much of the criticism of the IRS is unfair, or was unfair given the information available at the time; I have consistently argued to this effect.

That's taking a side of an argument.

 whembly wrote:
Secondly... honestly please, had this happened under a Republican administration vs liberal groups, would you still defend the IRS actions?

When the first story came out, I said what happened was terrible. I don't know if you remember that, but I actually commented that this was the scandal to actually get worked up over, that Benghazi never was.

But as the issue has continued and I've learned a lot more, it's become apparent that the early narrative was really just the GOP take on events, and that the truth of what happened was a lot more complex. I mean, sure, the IRS actions where poor (as we agree, approval of charity status shouldn't be an IRS thing), but evidence that there was deliberate targeting of right wing groups is actually very light on the ground, and evidence that this was in any way organised and not just individual IRS agents is even thinner.

Heh... guess, what... he wasn't breaking the law. If I remember right, he posted the full video in his last two stings. I'll admit, he's an f'n troublemaker that seems to push the envelope too much.

Whether or not he needed an audit, I don't know. Just pointing out that he is being audited isn't proof of oppression, unless you can also establish that there is nothing for the auditors to be suspicious of.

And he doesn't 'push the envelope'. He tells lies to trick people in to believing his claims. When conservatives pointed out the tricks Michael Moore used at some points in some of his movies, they had a good point. But O'Keefe doesn't just sometimes use those tricks, those tricks are in fact the entirety of his work.

No...it's an attempt to legitimize the "targeting".

But there is nothing in the legislation that makes it easier to target a Republican aligned group any more than a Democrat aligned group.

Yes, he did break the law, but what's interesting is that this seemed retalitory... in a sense, "selective prosecution". The prosecutor behind this is on the shortlist to replace Holder.

If you want to demand ‘zero tolerance,’ let’s have at it... let's have unfettered FBI/DOJ investigation into every allegation, starting with the fundraising apparatus built by the president (the online contributions website with disabled verify mechanisms) and his ‘Chicagoland’ cronies.

*shrug*

The real issue is that campaign finance law is so haphazardly enforced... usually, its someone who so egregiously breaks the law (ie, straw donor schemes involving hundreds of thousand, if not millions), rather than the $15,000 D'Souza contributed.

Do you have other cases in which the law was breached but there's no investigation?

You're deflecting...

No, I'm finding your claim that Democratic aligned groups are exempted because unions and Chambers of Commerce are exempted to be very flimsy, because Chambers of Commerce aren't aligned to the Democrats. This leaves you with the claim that one Democrat aligned group, and one Republican aligned group is exempted, therefore Democrat bias.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Touché.

The point that Seb was missing was that under these proposed rules, activities such as candidate forums, get out the vote efforts, and voter registration would now be considered “political activity” for 501(c)(4) groups.

Groups like the Chamber of Commerce and Unions (under the same type) CAN engage in these activities as it's still kosher.

Which is bad law, in my opinion, but it isn't biased law, because there is no evidence at all that the groups being exempted are liberal aligned.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Personally my view is that the IRS would be justified if they treated all of the supposedly non-political 501(c)(4)s. A tea party group is blatantly political. There are progressive groups that are blatantly political. They should not be tax exempt. Now the only question that has yet been answered for me is did they go after all groups equally or not because, IIRC, they did no after progressive groups too.

The IRS included a series of politically aligned terms such as Emerge and ACORN to identify and investigate liberal groups, just as they did with the conservative groups.

In the end, 83% of groups picked up in the searches were aligned to the right wing, while 10% were aligned to the left. Now, 10% is obviously a minority, but it's likely there were simply a hell of a lot less new liberal groups in existance and being created at that time (remember we're talking about the height of the Tea Party's surge).

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Secondly... honestly please, had this happened under a Republican administration vs liberal groups, would you still defend the IRS actions?

When the first story came out, I said what happened was terrible. I don't know if you remember that, but I actually commented that this was the scandal to actually get worked up over, that Benghazi never was.

Yeah, I do remember that.

But as the issue has continued and I've learned a lot more, it's become apparent that the early narrative was really just the GOP take on events, and that the truth of what happened was a lot more complex. I mean, sure, the IRS actions where poor (as we agree, approval of charity status shouldn't be an IRS thing), but evidence that there was deliberate targeting of right wing groups is actually very light on the ground, and evidence that this was in any way organised and not just individual IRS agents is even thinner.

Why did Lerner plead the 5th?

Why hasn't the DoJ/FBI actually, you know, interview any of the targeted groups? If nothing else, to document their statements at the very least?

Why and what were the details of Lerner and other officials using unsanctioned email accounts in discussing IRS business?

I refute your classification that "evidence" is very light here...

No...it's an attempt to legitimize the "targeting".

But there is nothing in the legislation that makes it easier to target a Republican aligned group any more than a Democrat aligned group.

True... and theoretically, a Republican adminstration could pull this gak. It's still bad.

The new rules is an attempt to change previously operated understandings to legitimize their actions when all of this started...

Yes, he did break the law, but what's interesting is that this seemed retalitory... in a sense, "selective prosecution". The prosecutor behind this is on the shortlist to replace Holder.

If you want to demand ‘zero tolerance,’ let’s have at it... let's have unfettered FBI/DOJ investigation into every allegation, starting with the fundraising apparatus built by the president (the online contributions website with disabled verify mechanisms) and his ‘Chicagoland’ cronies.

*shrug*

The real issue is that campaign finance law is so haphazardly enforced... usually, its someone who so egregiously breaks the law (ie, straw donor schemes involving hundreds of thousand, if not millions), rather than the $15,000 D'Souza contributed.

Do you have other cases in which the law was breached but there's no investigation?

I'm not quite sure I understand what you're asking?

Are you asking if there's other prosecutions? Sure... all over the map, from both parties. They're almost always those who egregiously flaunt the law, raising hundreds, if not millions of dollars.

I did read it, and no it does not give any evidence at all on why this should be a case taken up by the courts rather than something for law interns to laugh about during coffee break.

You never answered my question about your assertion it's rampant paranoia and fear mongering are what keep the government in check. Or that you had any idea our system of government is not perfect and that other free countries exist around the world that and we are not authorities to say how anyone else should run their country.

 whembly wrote:
It's an attempt to legitimized the IRS actions that started this whole ordeal.

Unless you take the job of deciding who's a charity and give it to some other body (which no-one is talking about), then this has to be a legitimate operation of the IRS. You can't just have people deciding for themselves whether their group is a charity, someone has to investigate it and determine whether its actually true or not. And as long as that is the case, then you need that process formalised and made clear to all involved - which is the biggest issue I can see with the IRS operation - with no clear process under law, they followed an ad hoc and often informal process, which of course led to feelings of poor treatement by some investigated groups, and instances of excessive inquiry by IRS officials.

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
It's an attempt to legitimized the IRS actions that started this whole ordeal.

Unless you take the job of deciding who's a charity and give it to some other body (which no-one is talking about), then this has to be a legitimate operation of the IRS.

Of course it's a legitimate operation. So where's the Checks & Balances to ensure that the process is grounded? OH! Yeah, Congress is currently excercising just that.

You can't just have people deciding for themselves whether their group is a charity, someone has to investigate it and determine whether its actually true or not. And as long as that is the case, then you need that process formalised and made clear to all involved - which is the biggest issue I can see with the IRS operation - with no clear process under law, they followed an ad hoc and often informal process, which of course led to feelings of poor treatement by some investigated groups, and instances of excessive inquiry by IRS officials.

True.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Alexzandvar wrote:

You never answered my question about your assertion it's rampant paranoia and fear mongering are what keep the government in check. Or that you had any idea our system of government is not perfect and that other free countries exist around the world that and we are not authorities to say how anyone else should run their country.

You're not being clear here.

When did I advocate that US is perfect?

When did I propose that "paranoia and fear mongering" is what keeps the government in check?

When did I surmise that we are the authorities on how anyone else should run their country?

You said that unless we constantly question the government we will end up like a "Banana republic"

This statement of yours is a very loaded one.

First your inferring that you have any right to look down on other peoples form of governance with out being at least self aware of your own.

Second you twisted my words by claiming that we should always question the government, when my claim was that pointlessly questioning the government with no evidence only contributes to the problem of an overloaded bureaucracy rather than help fix it. I never stated that questioning the government when evidence can be provided that will hold up in court is bad. In fact, I said the opposite.

 whembly wrote:

The new proposed regulation legitimizes this targeting... wouldn't you agree?

Not at all, obviously. That is part of the substance of our disagreement.

 whembly wrote:

Can be ambiguous... no? This puts such determination on the IRS' hand to potentially engage in these endeavors.

You're switching arguments again, and strangely moving on to one I've made before, which is that the ambiguity within the NPO tax code needs to be eliminated. These proposed regulations work to eliminate the ambiguity in their enforcement, but the IRS has no power to alter the tax code itself; that's left to Congress.

Anyway, the agency whose purpose is to enforce the tax code is always going to be, ultimately, responsible for determining whether or not a particular group qualifies for a particular sort of tax status. That's an inevitable consequence of bureaucracy.

 whembly wrote:

define things such as distributing voter guides, registering people to vote and running ads that mention elected officials close to Election Day as “candidate-related political activities.” The rule would substantially roll back the level of political activity open to “social welfare” groups.

That's not my interpretation of the proposed rule changes, but if that interpretation is correct it would also have a massive impact on liberal organizations because, as I said before, things voter registration and GOTV are historical cornerstones of left-leaning 501(c)(4) activity. This would mean that these rule changes are not a case of targeting according to political leaning.

 whembly wrote:

So, on the one hand, you had organizations, under (c)(4), were granted great latitude to engage in elections, which many groups from all political persuasions, have increasingly exercised in recent years.

On the other hand, this new proposal would significantly change the ways in which tax-exempt organizations are used for political purposes... which traditionally the IRS gave zero feths about.

Well, that's wrong on its face. Minimally it is clear the IRS was quite concerned by 501(c)(4)s for many years, hence all the allegations of targeting and move to centralize the 501(c)(4) review process. Further, that section of the tax code had been a point of concern for many people working within the political community, the nonprofit community, and the regulatory community; especially in the wake of Citizen's United.

That you're only hearing about it now is because it simply wasn't sufficiently scandalous to show up on your radar.

 whembly wrote:

Because then it would be easier to defend those actions politically if the new rules are in placed.

No it wouldn't, that's nonsense. On a political level the allegations are essentially damage done, and regulatory changes will not make them more defensible. At least beyond the sense that they could be used as an example of Democrats attempting to fix a problem, which is likely a big reason Republicans are so intent on painting these changes as part of the problem.

 Alexzandvar wrote:
You said that unless we constantly question the government we will end up like a "Banana republic"

I said:
And it is ABSOLUTELY the Government's job to justify itself. Otherwise, you're living in a Banana Republic.
Are you advocating that we be worker drones, subservient to our Governmental Overlord?

First your inferring that you have any right to look down on other peoples form of governance with out being at least self aware of your own.

You're still not making sense. I've NOT once discussed "other peoples form of governance" in this thread.

Second you twisted my words by claiming that we should always question the government, when my claim was that pointlessly questioning the government with no evidence only contributes to the problem of an overloaded bureaucracy rather than help fix it. I never stated that questioning the government when evidence can be provided that will hold up in court is bad. In fact, I said the opposite.

You outrightly dismissed AIM's court case that I posted.... that speaks volume of your "open mindedness".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Can be ambiguous... no? This puts such determination on the IRS' hand to potentially engage in these endeavors.

You're switching arguments again, and strangely moving on to one I've made before, which is that the ambiguity within the NPO tax code needs to be eliminated. These proposed regulations work to eliminate the ambiguity in their enforcement, but the IRS has no power to alter the tax code itself; that's left to Congress.

Huh? My understanding is that the IRS/Treasury could implement this regulatory change...

Anyway, the agency whose purpose is to enforce the tax code is always going to be, ultimately, responsible for determining whether or not a particular group qualifies for a particular sort of tax status. That's an inevitable consequence of bureaucracy.

Absolutely.

 whembly wrote:

define things such as distributing voter guides, registering people to vote and running ads that mention elected officials close to Election Day as “candidate-related political activities.” The rule would substantially roll back the level of political activity open to “social welfare” groups.

That's not my interpretation of the proposed rule changes, but if that interpretation is correct it would also have a massive impact on liberal organizations because, as I said before, things voter registration and GOTV are historical cornerstones of left-leaning 501(c)(4) activity.

Exactly.

This would mean that these rule changes are not a case of targeting according to political leaning.

Huh? Are you implying that these were in the works to be addressed?

 whembly wrote:

So, on the one hand, you had organizations, under (c)(4), were granted great latitude to engage in elections, which many groups from all political persuasions, have increasingly exercised in recent years.

On the other hand, this new proposal would significantly change the ways in which tax-exempt organizations are used for political purposes... which traditionally the IRS gave zero feths about.

Well, that's wrong on its face. Minimally it is clear the IRS was quite concerned by 501(c)(4)s for many years, hence all the allegations of targeting and move to centralize the 501(c)(4) review process. Further, that section of the tax code had been a point of concern for many people working within the political community, the nonprofit community, and the regulatory community; especially in the wake of Citizen's United.

That you're only hearing about it now is because it simply wasn't sufficiently scandalous to show up on your radar.

Zero feths was too strong... I take that back.

This all snowballed since Citizen's United... that's true.

 whembly wrote:

Because then it would be easier to defend those actions politically if the new rules are in placed.

No it wouldn't, that's nonsense. On a political level the allegations are essentially damage done, and regulatory changes will not make them more defensible. At least beyond the sense that they could be used as an example of Democrats attempting to fix a problem, which is likely a big reason Republicans are so intent on painting these changes as part of the problem.

Seriously?

What damange? o.O

I dismissed it because despite your claims it has no more evidence than the flimsy things you have said and or just linked in this thread. These things do not make a good court case.

And, once again you twist my words because I said "question the government", because it summed up your statement in fewer words not because I was implying a different meaning.

And I don't get how you don't understand my point? Do you not know what "infer" means? It's reading in between the lines.

First you state that unless the government justifies itself all the time we are heading towards "Banana Republic", by stating this you are asserting that unless someone follows the strict guide lines you have layed down they are on there way to destruction. This of course, is untrue and by stating it, it makes you seem silly because our government has never made a habit of justifying itself (Like many other western government's that use top down systems like ours) , and we are not a banana republic.

The Fed is held only accountable for things you can prove, because if we went your way of the government selling every single thing it does to the public (in other words "Justifying" it) it would not actually have any time or funding to do the thing itself. You should fly over to D.C. sometime, you can get tours of some of the departments.

Our government operates on the idea people with knowledge in there chosen fields who are assigned to working the government agency that deals with that field does not need the president their to hold their hand.

What your suggesting Whembly is McCarthyism, pointless witch hunts and hounding in order to once again, reinforce the "Us VS Them" narrative.

It's ironic really, that your "fix" to government over regulation is just over regulating the government itself.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Here have a quote

"Formerly there were those who said: You believe things that are incomprehensible, inconsistent, impossible because we have commanded you to believe them; go then and do what is unjust because we command it. Such people show admirable reasoning. Truly, whoever is able to make you absurd is able to make you unjust. If the God-given understanding of your mind does not resist a demand to believe what is impossible, then you will not resist a demand to do wrong to that God-given sense of justice in your heart. As soon as one faculty of your soul has been dominated, other faculties will follow as well. And from this derives all those crimes of religion which have overrun the world.

Questions sur les miracles (1765)
Alternative condensed translation: "Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities"."

So please Whembly, think before you get all in a huff.

 Alexzandvar wrote:
I dismissed it because despite your claims it has no more evidence than the flimsy things you have said and or just linked in this thread. These things do not make a good court case.

I'm sorry... am I supposed to bow before your pre-eminent knowledge of all things related to what makes "a good court case"?

And, once again you twist my words because I said "question the government", because it summed up your statement in fewer words not because I was implying a different meaning.

And I don't get how you don't understand my point? Do you not know what "infer" means? It's reading in between the lines.

Of course I know what "infer" means... but, you've been all over the map.

First you state that unless the government justifies itself all the time we are heading towards "Banana Republic", by stating this you are asserting that unless someone follows the strict guide lines you have layed down they are on there way to destruction. This of course, is untrue and by stating it, it makes you seem silly because our government has never made a habit of justifying itself (Like many other western government's that use top down systems like ours) , and we are not a banana republic.

By the Holy Emprah of Terra.

No.

That.

Is.

Not.

What.

I.

Was.

Implying...

Our government is based simply on the laws & regulations we have on the book. Operating within those frameworks is being "accountable". Once one go beyond that, trouble is waiting at the other end.

The Fed is held only accountable for things you can prove, because if we went your way of the government selling every single thing it does to the public (in other words "Justifying" it) it would not actually have any time or funding to do the thing itself. You should fly over to D.C. sometime, you can get tours of some of the departments.

Our government operates on the idea people with knowledge in there chosen fields who are assigned to working the government agency that deals with that field does not need the president their to hold their hand.

I'm sorry... but, this is so naive... it's cute.

You're making me feel old kid.

What your suggesting Whembly is McCarthyism, pointless witch hunts and hounding in order to once again, reinforce the "Us VS Them" narrative.

Read up what really happened during that time frame.

What I'm doing is nothing close to McCarthyism.

It's ironic really, that your "fix" to government over regulation is just over regulating the government itself.

It's twofold really:
a) we need clear and concise regulation that is meaningful.
b) any malfeasance need to be rooted out and persecuted to maintain integrity.

That's what this is all about.

 whembly wrote:
Why did Lerner plead the 5th?

Why hasn't the DoJ/FBI actually, you know, interview any of the targeted groups? If nothing else, to document their statements at the very least?

Why and what were the details of Lerner and other officials using unsanctioned email accounts in discussing IRS business?

I refute your classification that "evidence" is very light here...

None of that is evidence. Its gossip used for speculation.

True... and theoretically, a Republican adminstration could pull this gak. It's still bad.

Huh? There's as much scope in that law to pick out only Republican groups or only Liberal groups as there is to pick out individual tax payers based on their political allegiances.

Now it sounds like you're objecting to the idea that there should be any kind of process to investigate and decide what groups are charities, because it might possibly be used politically.

I'm not quite sure I understand what you're asking?

Can you state another instance in which a person used straw donors to avoid the $5,000 limit on donations, but was not prosecuted? Because if the law is selective... then you should be able to pick out another instance of the same thing happening, that the prosecution passed on.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Of course it's a legitimate operation. So where's the Checks & Balances to ensure that the process is grounded? OH! Yeah, Congress is currently excercising just that.

There's approximately 12 million different congressional oversight groups that looks in to IRS operations.

And, you know, it isn't as though this IRS scandal has just gone quietly in to the night. Even if there was some IRS oppression on Tea Party groups that had been initiated by Obama himself, do you really think given the media blow out any president would want to try anything like it again?

I wouldn't call understanding the basic concept of a Federal Government naivete. We hire and appoint people into the various ABC's who have experience in that subject. and I have to assume your total dismissal of my post means you also think the president needs to hold the hand of every agency like the president isn't already spread thin enough.

And what your literally doing here is McCarthyism, sure your not hunting communists, but instead some magical thing you can use to prove the president is a bad one. McCarthyism is when you do witch hunts and hype up every slip of the person or group you dislike in order to destabilize things for your own benefit.

How else could anyone ever take your never ending hyping over every single "scandal" the media hypes up themselves to get better rating? Just as I said earlier, any chance of anyone ever giving a crap about Bengazhi is finished because the media over blew it so much you had "witnesses" or other people who claimed some other random association to the event and it turned out in the end that almost every single one was lying or embellishing the truth which of course sank any attempt gather interest in it again.

and I didn't post that quote lightly, the right wing hype machine convinced the mother of poor sean smith that the Pres was directly responsible for her sons death. So if you want to get upset about mistreatment of people, get mad you and every other Bengazhi truth-er turned a grieving mother into a megaphone to spout your baseless accusations from.

Read this: http://themittani.com/news/playboy-vile-rat

I want you to read that article as many times as it takes to realize the damage you cause when you spout what you do.