IRS to formalize censorship against Conservative groups

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • ArcadiaGP

    Wanderer
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    11   0   0
    Jun 15, 2009
    31,726
    113
    Indianapolis
    URGENT>>> IRS to Formalize Censorship Against Conservative Groups | The Gateway Pundit

    As of February 1, IRS Reg-134417-13 ruling, intended to curtail political participation by non-profit groups, received 20,880 comments. The IRS will take comments until February 27, 2014.

    Our population is a little over three hundred and ten million. In view of that, twenty thousand comments is a pitiful showing. It most certainly is not enough to demand thorough rejection of this extraordinary ruling. I can only conclude that most Americans are unaware of the ruling, let alone know what it actually proposes. So let us be clear.

    The IRS Reg-134417-13 ruling proposes to forbid non-profits to hold voter registration drives, advertise, promote, and engage in activities regarding any political incumbent or candidate. It forbids fundraisers for political incumbents and candidates, prohibits any kind of political activity including rallies, political mailings, teas, Meet and Greets, forums and gatherings of any kind that deal with political issues. It forbids a non-profit to support or oppose, discuss, or question those seeking political office. It forbids the gathering of signatures on petitions with political content of any kind, including nominating petitions and the advice, suggestion or request that the electorate support or oppose House and Senate bills.

    So uh, when do we put our foot down on this?
     

    BogWalker

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    Jan 5, 2013
    6,305
    63
    So, let me get this straight. It prevents non-profits from being involved in politics? I suppose it affects both parties equally. How will campaigning be done now? I thought most of the campaigning was done by private donations funneled through a non-profit set up to run the campaign, or is that a different type of entity?
     

    jamil

    code ho
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 17, 2011
    60,169
    113
    Gtown-ish
    URGENT>>> IRS to Formalize Censorship Against Conservative Groups | The Gateway Pundit

    As of February 1, IRS Reg-134417-13 ruling, intended to curtail political participation by non-profit groups, received 20,880 comments. The IRS will take comments until February 27, 2014.

    Our population is a little over three hundred and ten million. In view of that, twenty thousand comments is a pitiful showing. It most certainly is not enough to demand thorough rejection of this extraordinary ruling. I can only conclude that most Americans are unaware of the ruling, let alone know what it actually proposes. So let us be clear.

    The IRS Reg-134417-13 ruling proposes to forbid non-profits to hold voter registration drives, advertise, promote, and engage in activities regarding any political incumbent or candidate. It forbids fundraisers for political incumbents and candidates, prohibits any kind of political activity including rallies, political mailings, teas, Meet and Greets, forums and gatherings of any kind that deal with political issues. It forbids a non-profit to support or oppose, discuss, or question those seeking political office. It forbids the gathering of signatures on petitions with political content of any kind, including nominating petitions and the advice, suggestion or request that the electorate support or oppose House and Senate bills.
    So uh, when do we put our foot down on this?
    Ah, so Obama's non-profit, Organizing for Action, would pretty much lose its entire purpose? Funny that this is proposed AFTER he won election.
     

    jamil

    code ho
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 17, 2011
    60,169
    113
    Gtown-ish
    This is not a bad thing. Don't see why anyone should get a free pass.

    I don't have a big problem with non-profits doing political activities. It gives individuals a way to gain a bigger voice. But I doubt that these rules would be enforced fairly without party bias.

    What's Obama going to do with Organizing for Action? It's a moving violation of the new rulz.
     

    MisterChester

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    May 25, 2013
    3,383
    48
    The Compound
    I don't have a big problem with non-profits doing political activities. It gives individuals a way to gain a bigger voice. But I doubt that these rules would be enforced fairly without party bias.

    What's Obama going to do with Organizing for Action? It's a moving violation of the new rulz.

    Most likely it'll get swept under the rug and quietly labeled defunct when he leaves office. Either that or it gets passed on to the next dem candidate and it gets to be "rebranded".
     

    jamil

    code ho
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 17, 2011
    60,169
    113
    Gtown-ish
    Most likely it'll get swept under the rug and quietly labeled defunct when he leaves office. Either that or it gets passed on to the next dem candidate and it gets to be "rebranded".

    Probably the latter, and undoubtedly, and it will have no problems getting it's non-profit status.
     

    ArcadiaGP

    Wanderer
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    11   0   0
    Jun 15, 2009
    31,726
    113
    Indianapolis
    Current liberal non-profits are operating illegally (MMFA, OFA) already, it's just no one is enforcing anything on them.

    This just makes what they did to Tea Party groups more legal. They can continue to not enforce these laws on liberal groups.
     

    Purdue Plinker

    Plinker
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Jul 7, 2013
    88
    8
    Indy
    So uh, when do we put our foot down on this?

    You're upset that a regulation is clarifying that improper abuse of 501(c)4 status is indeed improper? Or more just pissed that most of the organizations who were abusing the status improperly were tea party groups and somehow enforcing the law is biased because these groups were the ones breaking it?

    Current liberal non-profits are operating illegally (MMFA, OFA) already, it's just no one is enforcing anything on them.
    If this is the root of your issue then more understandable. If they too are operating illegally, they should be reprimanded and transformed into 527s like much of the increase in 503(c)4's ought to have been started as. Fairness is key, being mad that abuse didn't go unnoticed or enforced is not so reasonable.


    This piece from OSU law school in Oct 2010 was pretty good at foreseeing the future:
    Election Law @ Moritz (Commentary: The Rise of 501(c)(4)s in campaign activity: Are they as clever as they think?)
    The question, however, is not whether (c)(4)s can get away with this behavior in the short run, but whether their interpretations are in fact correct and whether their actions are legal. If their actions are illegal, then there are actions that can be taken to rein in large-scale abuse.

    [...]

    So in short, 501(c)(4) organizations are supposed to be primarily engaged in social welfare, are not subject to tax on income, and may engage in a limited amount of intervention in a political campaign. Section 527 organizations are designed for political advocacy. Contributions to the organizations are not income, but the organizations are required to disclose contributions and expenditures or face additional tax.
    Current advocates of using (c)(4)s as campaign advocacy vehicles are distorting the law and often are mischaracterizing their activities. If they are truly lobbying to promote their social welfare purpose, then they are properly (c)(4) organizations. But if they are engaged in intervention in a political campaign, and they are trying to cloak their activities as lobbying, they are violating both the spirit and the substance of the statute. Under campaign finance jurisprudence, they may be able to use such trickery, but it is usually not accepted in tax jurisprudence.

    [...]

    So are proponents of 501(c)(4)s as smart as they think? Probably, if smarts are measured by what they can get away with in the short run. But if their point is that they have found a legal way to engage in secret campaign advocacy, they are wrong, on both moral and legal grounds. The question is not whether the IRS, Congress, or local bars have the power to limit this abuse, they certainly do. The question is whether we are going to be serious about disclosure in a post-Citizens United campaign finance system. If (c)(4)s can be used as independent campaign advocacy organizations with no disclosure requirements, then there will be no check on the corruptive influence of large campaign contribution and our democracy will surely suffer.

    More background: IRS Controversy: What is a 501(c)(4) anyway? ? The Judge Ben C. Green Law Library ? Case Western Reserve University School of Law

    Obviously both sides should be held equally accountable to properly registering based on the actions of the organization and the law.

    I don't have a big problem with non-profits doing political activities.

    Besides the fact that it is against the law of the status under which they were organized? It you want a political group, it should be a 527.
    501(c)4 vs 501(c)3 vs 527
     

    ArcadiaGP

    Wanderer
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    11   0   0
    Jun 15, 2009
    31,726
    113
    Indianapolis
    Not quite sure I agree...

    They were targeted based on names... not actions. "Patriots" blah blah.... bam, targeted. Hundreds of them that didn't even have a chance to make a meaningful impact were halted by the IRS.

    All the while liberal groups were given free reign (including the President's half-brother, Malik, who operated VERY illegally for years, until the IRS illegally fast-tracked his application and back-dated it to make it all nice and legal-looking.)

    Yeah, the bias is my problem.
     

    Purdue Plinker

    Plinker
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Jul 7, 2013
    88
    8
    Indy
    Not quite sure I agree...

    They were targeted based on names... not actions. "Patriots" blah blah.... bam, targeted. Hundreds of them that didn't even have a chance to make a meaningful impact were halted by the IRS.

    All the while liberal groups were given free reign (including the President's half-brother, Malik, who operated VERY illegally for years, until the IRS illegally fast-tracked his application and back-dated it to make it all nice and legal-looking.)

    Yeah, the bias is my problem.

    Okay, that's fair.

    The IRS probably felt way overwhelmed by the political groups piling into 501(c)4 status but should not have targeted groups even if they were most likely the culprits. You know how people hate profiling - similar strategy for trying to find criminals on the street based on bias or prejudice would not have been acceptable either.

    However, by nature, a group focused primarily on politics doesn't belong in 501(c)4 therefore any group rooted in politics and choosing to file for 501(c)4 is an action in itself violating the purpose of the status. I don't feel any pity for them not even having a chance to make a meaningful impact when they were illegally declaring themselves 501(c)4 when they should have been 527.

    Same can be said for OFA though so equity is key and a valid reason to be disappointed in the investigation and enforcement of the abuse.
     

    ArcadiaGP

    Wanderer
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    11   0   0
    Jun 15, 2009
    31,726
    113
    Indianapolis
    Okay, that's fair.

    The IRS probably felt way overwhelmed by the political groups piling into 501(c)4 status but should not have targeted groups even if they were most likely the culprits. You know how people hate profiling - similar strategy for trying to find criminals on the street based on bias or prejudice would not have been acceptable either.

    However, by nature, a group focused primarily on politics doesn't belong in 501(c)4 therefore any group rooted in politics and choosing to file for 501(c)4 is an action in itself violating the purpose of the status. I don't feel any pity for them not even having a chance to make a meaningful impact when they were illegally declaring themselves 501(c)4 when they should have been 527.

    Same can be said for OFA though so equity is key and a valid reason to be disappointed in the investigation and enforcement of the abuse.

    We really don't know the intentions of the groups, so it's hard to pass judgement on them. Values don't always represent political affiliation. Being a "Patriot" should be something cherished by both the Left and the Right. Unfortunately, stereotypically... it isn't anymore.

    As far as profiling, and this is off-topic, but I have nothing against it... at all. When it comes to screening for flights and whatnot - We know that young muslim men crashed planes into our towers. I'm 100% ok with profiling young muslim men when it comes to that.

    Maybe that's an unpopular opinion, so be it.
     

    Purdue Plinker

    Plinker
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Jul 7, 2013
    88
    8
    Indy
    We really don't know the intentions of the groups, so it's hard to pass judgement on them. Values don't always represent political affiliation. Being a "Patriot" should be something cherished by both the Left and the Right. Unfortunately, stereotypically... it isn't anymore.

    As far as profiling, and this is off-topic, but I have nothing against it... at all. When it comes to screening for flights and whatnot - We know that young muslim men crashed planes into our towers. I'm 100% ok with profiling young muslim men when it comes to that.

    Maybe that's an unpopular opinion, so be it.
    So was there any news of a group that was stopped that wasn't political and wrongly identified as such? I haven't read anything alone those lines - just groups upset that they couldn't break the law because others had gotten away with it. It should be about bringing things back in line with the law, which the regulation is aimed to do, for both sides.

    Ah, so only for profiling when its not a group similar to you being the target? The IRS knew that it was a huge number of Tea Party groups violating 501(c)4 status. I fail to see the difference in bias against them and racial profiling at the airport.
     

    jamil

    code ho
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 17, 2011
    60,169
    113
    Gtown-ish
    Besides the fact that it is against the law of the status under which they were organized? It you want a political group, it should be a 527.
    501(c)4 vs 501(c)3 vs 527

    I didn't say it wasn't against the law. I said I don't have a problem with it. It shouldn't be against the law. Lot's of things are illegal that shouldn't be.

    Why does the government need to regulate groups of people who want to pool their resources for some particular cause? In practice it seems it is to punish their enemies and reward their friends. There should not even be 527s or 501s.

    jamil's tax plan would obviate the need. Only individuals (every individual) who earns money pays 10%. Period. Kids, spouses, whomever. No corporate tax. No tax returns. No dependents to claim. IRS gets gutted. No deficit spending. If there's no money to pay for it, it doesn't get done. Every individual who pays taxes gets to designate where he or she wants the discretionary portion of his or her tax liability to go. You want to redistribute wealth, you can choose to redistribute your own.
     

    jamil

    code ho
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 17, 2011
    60,169
    113
    Gtown-ish
    So was there any news of a group that was stopped that wasn't political and wrongly identified as such? I haven't read anything alone those lines - just groups upset that they couldn't break the law because others had gotten away with it. It should be about bringing things back in line with the law, which the regulation is aimed to do, for both sides.

    Ah, so only for profiling when its not a group similar to you being the target? The IRS knew that it was a huge number of Tea Party groups violating 501(c)4 status. I fail to see the difference in bias against them and racial profiling at the airport.

    Well, if they're going to profile, fine. Just do it evenly. Surely the IRS is equally aware of the huge number of liberal groups violating 501(c)4 status. Why not look for "union" or "united workers" in the name or, "organizing" or "action". Why would the IRS quickly give Obama's own .org the status and stall anything with "tea party" or "patriot"? Many tea party groups that were stalled prior to the election eventually got the status--after the election. Obama's .org's ONLY purpose was his election and thereafter, his political agenda. It clearly violates the intent of the law. That law clearly serves the purpose of political expedience and not much else that's beneficial. Abolish it.
     
    Top Bottom