IRS Targeted Conservative Groups

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
maxiep said:
Why are you so hung up on the amounts spent? Denny, the issue isn't damage, it's intent. The IRS has to be above reproach. It HAS to treat people and organizations fairly and equally. They didn't. And as the article says, all orders came from above the low level employees currently blamed in the talking points.
Click to expand...

Intent to do ... what?

I bring up the amounts spent because whatever the IRS did do, did not affect anyone's ability to raise money, spend it, talk about whatever the fuck they wanted in their ads, etc.

I don't disagree about the IRS needing to act ethically. As I've said already, they did not, and heads will roll. But that does not make this anything close to what Nixon did. His name doesn't belong in this discussion at all.

The approval process for 501(c)4 is nothing like an audit. An audit is a guilty until proven innocent situation, you must comply, etc. And if the IRS agent is really looking for the tiniest thing, you'll get slammed with penalties, etc.

Consider Nixon ordered the IRS to audit his enemies. When IRS people refused to do the wrong thing, Nixon tried to fire them.

Consider Obama did not order the IRS to do anything. There's simply not a shred of evidence he did. Obama fired the IRS people at the top (from above the low level employees bit) for doing the wrong thing. Not like Nixon. The opposite, in fact.

Like I said, Pin the Fail on the Donkey is a winning case. "Obama is Nixon v2.0" is not, and makes those saying he is look stupid. Looking stupid loses elections.
 
Denny Crane said:
Intent to do ... what?

I bring up the amounts spent because whatever the IRS did do, did not affect anyone's ability to raise money, spend it, talk about whatever the fuck they wanted in their ads, etc.

I don't disagree about the IRS needing to act ethically. As I've said already, they did not, and heads will roll. But that does not make this anything close to what Nixon did. His name doesn't belong in this discussion at all.

The approval process for 501(c)4 is nothing like an audit. An audit is a guilty until proven innocent situation, you must comply, etc. And if the IRS agent is really looking for the tiniest thing, you'll get slammed with penalties, etc.

Consider Nixon ordered the IRS to audit his enemies. When IRS people refused to do the wrong thing, Nixon tried to fire them.

Consider Obama did not order the IRS to do anything. There's simply not a shred of evidence he did. Obama fired the IRS people at the top (from above the low level employees bit) for doing the wrong thing. Not like Nixon. The opposite, in fact.

Like I said, Pin the Fail on the Donkey is a winning case. "Obama is Nixon v2.0" is not, and makes those saying he is look stupid. Looking stupid loses elections.
Click to expand...

Denny, there are a whole bunch of advantages to being a 501(c)4. And not being one does put you at a disadvantage.

First, you don't have the imprimatur of being a tax-exempt non-profit. When competing for donation dollars, it makes people less willing to donate to you.

Second, you don't qualify for a panoply of grants available to such organizations.

Third, these aren't all big organizations like Crossroads. Most of these are mom and pop organizations. They don't have the resources to comply quickly and without shifting resources from their core mission.

Fourth, the information requested makes many of these organizations just give up.

Fifth, the information requested has a chilling effect on donors. Are you more or less likely to donate if you know your name, your activities and your postings on websites are going to be submitted to the IRS?

However, this post is a wasted one. I think your defense of this policy is ridiculous; you think those of us bothered by a government agency targeting political enemies of the Administration is just something that happens.. I furthermore think these activities rise to the level of a criminal offense; you think the only solution is to vote differently. We disagree.
 
maxiep said:
Denny, there are a whole bunch of advantages to being a 501(c)4. And not being one does put you at a disadvantage.

First, you don't have the imprimatur of being a tax-exempt non-profit. When competing for donation dollars, it makes people less willing to donate to you.

Second, you don't qualify for a panoply of grants available to such organizations.

Third, these aren't all big organizations like Crossroads. Most of these are mom and pop organizations. They don't have the resources to comply quickly and without shifting resources from their core mission.

Fourth, the information requested makes many of these organizations just give up.

Fifth, the information requested has a chilling effect on donors. Are you more or less likely to donate if you know your name, your activities and your postings on websites are going to be submitted to the IRS?

However, this post is a wasted one. I think your defense of this policy is ridiculous; you think those of us bothered by a government agency targeting political enemies of the Administration is just something that happens.. I furthermore think these activities rise to the level of a criminal offense; you think the only solution is to vote differently. We disagree.
Click to expand...

What crime?

First, donors to the 501(c)4 cannot deduct their contributions, so I don't see the makes people less willing argument.

Second, the whole point of abusing 501(c)4 is to allow donors to be anonymous. Are you in favor of Soros being able to donate unlimited amounts anonymously? And these organizations should not be tax exempt if supporting candidates.

Third, comply with what? If you want a driver's license, you have to learn to drive and take a driving and written test.

Fourth, they shouldn't be given the status in the first place.

Fifth, whoa. You are suggesting we let Soros anonymously buy elections. NO THANKS. Let him deal with the transparency if he wants to donate.

I'm told I am not a libertarian.

Democrats want to limit campaign donations altogether, if not fund elections publicly altogether.

Republicans want to buy elections through anonymous donations from the uber wealthy.

I want free speech in the form of unlimited donations, but with full disclosure.
 
Denny Crane said:
What crime?

First, donors to the 501(c)4 cannot deduct their contributions, so I don't see the makes people less willing argument.

Second, the whole point of abusing 501(c)4 is to allow donors to be anonymous. Are you in favor of Soros being able to donate unlimited amounts anonymously? And these organizations should not be tax exempt if supporting candidates.

Third, comply with what? If you want a driver's license, you have to learn to drive and take a driving and written test.

Fourth, they shouldn't be given the status in the first place.

Fifth, whoa. You are suggesting we let Soros anonymously buy elections. NO THANKS. Let him deal with the transparency if he wants to donate.

I'm told I am not a libertarian.

Democrats want to limit campaign donations altogether, if not fund elections publicly altogether.

Republicans want to buy elections through anonymous donations from the uber wealthy.

I want free speech in the form of unlimited donations, but with full disclosure.
Click to expand...

So now you're the victim. LOL I've seen it all. This is a thread for the ages.
 
Denny Crane said:
What crime?

First, donors to the 501(c)4 cannot deduct their contributions, so I don't see the makes people less willing argument.

Second, the whole point of abusing 501(c)4 is to allow donors to be anonymous. Are you in favor of Soros being able to donate unlimited amounts anonymously? And these organizations should not be tax exempt if supporting candidates.

Third, comply with what? If you want a driver's license, you have to learn to drive and take a driving and written test.

Fourth, they shouldn't be given the status in the first place.

Fifth, whoa. You are suggesting we let Soros anonymously buy elections. NO THANKS. Let him deal with the transparency if he wants to donate.

I'm told I am not a libertarian.

Democrats want to limit campaign donations altogether, if not fund elections publicly altogether.

Republicans want to buy elections through anonymous donations from the uber wealthy.

I want free speech in the form of unlimited donations, but with full disclosure.
Click to expand...



The crime is that they are applying different standards to similar organizations. You don't get to do that. Furthermore, it was something that was organized and systemic. When the government found out about it, they had a responsibility to stop it. Instead, they made it worse.

Change "liberal group" and "conservative group" to "white group" and "black group" and ask yourself if that's a crime in the Federal Government.
 
maxiep said:


The crime is that they are applying different standards to similar organizations. You don't get to do that. Furthermore, it was something that was organized and systemic. When the government found out about it, they had a responsibility to stop it. Instead, they made it worse.

Change "liberal group" and "conservative group" to "white group" and "black group" and ask yourself if that's a crime in the Federal Government.
Click to expand...


You say it's a crime, but it's not. There's nothing in the penal code that says it is.

You were on to something a while back in the thread. If someone lied under oath to congress, then THAT might be a crime. But I think the guys being fired is going to be the end of it. As it was with Alberto Gonzelez.
 
Denny, you call yourself a libertarian, but you want all kinds of information in the hands of the government.

Why would I care about George Soros? He can spend his money any way he chooses. I don't care about Media Matters or the Center for American Progress.

I believe in free speech, within the bounds of libel/slander. I also agree in the right to privacy as to where you give your money. Claim it on your taxes if you wish, but if you don't, it's no one's business.
 
Denny Crane said:
You say it's a crime, but it's not. There's nothing in the penal code that says it is.

You were on to something a while back in the thread. If someone lied under oath to congress, then THAT might be a crime. But I think the guys being fired is going to be the end of it. As it was with Alberto Gonzelez.
Click to expand...

I've discussed this issue with a few friends of mine who are attorneys. Ironically, my two liberal friends, one an ADA for the State of Florida and another who works for DOJ in corporate litigation are the ones most adamant that crimes were committed. (go ahead Mick, have a nice fap with my "name dropping") The IRS has to give equal treatment. You don't get to pursue personal vendettas, nor do you get to attack your political enemies. When they don't, it's a crime. It's more than a firing offense. Hell, it was one of Nixon's Articles of impeachment.

And, thanks for the pat on the head about telling me I "was on to something" with Steven Miller. Golly, you're swell. He did lie to Congress. He should be prosecuted. And other people in the IRS and perhaps at Treasury or even in the Administration committed crimes.

I think the best way to ensure a government that operates ethically and fairly is to massively punish anyone who does something illegal. As long as they're more concerned with pleasing their bosses than doing time, they'll continue to allow corruption.
 
Ask your buddies what crime was committed. Ask for a pointer to the penal code where the crime is defined and the penalties as well.

As for the government collecting information, it has to in some cases. Like in the case of corporations, shareholders, stock, etc. These entities are corporations of a sort, and public entities. If Soros is buying elections, we have a right to know he's spending so we can factor that into our voting choices.
 
You guys should put some money on this argument.

Also Denny, Maxie just reached his 20,000th post so don't forget to send him a S2 t-shirt.
 
Denny Crane said:
Ask your buddies what crime was committed. Ask for a pointer to the penal code where the crime is defined and the penalties as well.

As for the government collecting information, it has to in some cases. Like in the case of corporations, shareholders, stock, etc. These entities are corporations of a sort, and public entities. If Soros is buying elections, we have a right to know he's spending so we can factor that into our voting choices.
Click to expand...

Of course, Denny. Independently, they both made up their conclusions. Yep, these are folks that have no idea of what constitutes a crime, especially in government. By the way, both of these people are to the left of the current administration. They both understand, however, that what is being done to the "other side" now can be done to "their side" in the future.

In this case, the IRS collected information it didn't need, it didn't request from equivalent groups with a different political philosophy and it then disseminated to a liberal group without them requesting it.

As for "buying elections", I reject completely the idea. I'm sure you'll bring up "paying people to vote", but that is illegal, so it's not a concern for me. As is libel and slander. We are born with free will. Furthermore, we have a responsibility to educate ourselves about the issues. I couldn't care less that someone spends a multiple than the other side. If someone is so weak-minded they have their mind changed by an advocacy group, then they get the government they deserve.

Edit: What a shitty topic for my 20,000th post.
 
You saw my post with the bloomberg article showing liberal groups were asked the same questions?

I really want to read the statute that says a crime was committed.

There is a difference between ethics and legality. What they did was clearly unethical, even morally wrong. Those are firing offenses.

I had no intention of bringing up paying people to vote. Just that Soros could spend $100M anonymously which could pay for a lot of ads that could be portrayed as grass roots or whatever.

And yeah, I think anyone that gets money from Soros is someone who's not getting my vote.
 
Denny Crane said:
You saw my post with the bloomberg article showing liberal groups were asked the same questions?

I really want to read the statute that says a crime was committed.

There is a difference between ethics and legality. What they did was clearly unethical, even morally wrong. Those are firing offenses.

I had no intention of bringing up paying people to vote. Just that Soros could spend $100M anonymously which could pay for a lot of ads that could be portrayed as grass roots or whatever.

And yeah, I think anyone that gets money from Soros is someone who's not getting my vote.
Click to expand...

Terrific. Both sides should be pissed.

If you want to find and read the statute, go ahead. No one is stopping you. (Hint: There doesn't have to be a direct statute).

It's not ethics, it is illegal. The power the IRS has means that it must treat everyone equally, regardless of sex, race, religion, orientation and political persuasion. It didn't. It wasn't one person. It was systemic. It came from somewhere. Investigate and jail those responsible.

I vote for the best candidate. I don't care who contributes to them. You're no better than the IRS agents. You're using Soros as a heuristic. Think independently. You still have that right.
 
They can't arrest someone and make up a jaw they violated. It's called ex post facto and it is specifically forbidden in the constitution.

Therefore there must be a specific crime on the books they have to be charged with. Ask the for what crime they think was committed. Ask for which section of the penal code. I do want to read it. If there is one, I'll gladly call for a prosecution. Otherwise, all I see is an investigation in search of a crime where search for the truth is actually appropriate. Fishing expedition. Witch hunt.
 
Denny Crane said:
They can't arrest someone and make up a jaw they violated. It's called ex post facto and it is specifically forbidden in the constitution.

Therefore there must be a specific crime on the books they have to be charged with. Ask the for what crime they think was committed. Ask for which section of the penal code. I do want to read it. If there is one, I'll gladly call for a prosecution. Otherwise, all I see is an investigation in search of a crime where search for the truth is actually appropriate. Fishing expedition. Witch hunt.
Click to expand...

Do your own research. I'm not your reference librarian.
 
Denny Crane said:
Hot air, since you can't produce what crime was supposedly committed.
Click to expand...

I'm choosing to believe my friends, who are actually lawyers for the government (one federal, one state). You believe what you wish.
 
maxiep said:
I'm choosing to believe my friends, who are actually lawyers for the government (one federal, one state). You believe what you wish.
Click to expand...

I believe your friends if you can come up with the statute they think was criminally violated.
 
Well there's lawyers and legal scholars looking for what possible crime was committed.

At least they point at the specific statutes that are at least a huge stretch to be claimed as the laws broken.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Eastoff
IRS targeted LEFT WING GROUPS TOO!
2
Replies
36
Views
2K
Masbee
Masbee
BigGameDamian
‘Angry’ Obama says acting IRS chief fired over conservative targeting....
Replies
7
Views
446
SlyPokerDog
SlyPokerDog
PapaG
IRS Chief's 118 White House Visits Must Be Explained
Replies
10
Views
429
donkiez
donkiez
SlyPokerDog
Politics Hate groups are registering as churches now. 40 Congressmembers want the IRS to investigate.
Replies
10
Views
632
julius
julius
truebluefan
Acting director of IRS forced to resign amid furor over targeting of conservative gr
Replies
0
Views
172
truebluefan
truebluefan

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top