The REAL IRS Scandal

[Cigar]

Conservative Non-profits that Received Tax Exempt Status Outspent Liberals by 34-to-1

The real scandal about the IRS is that they’ve been overwhelmed with dark money groups claiming nonprofit status since the passing of Citizens United, and conservative groups have outspent liberal groups on political spending by 34-1, according to a Center for Responsive Politics analysis of the IRS and FEC records.

Open Secrets reported, “Conservative nonprofits that received tax-exempt status since the beginning of 2010 and also filed election spending reports with the Federal Election Commission overwhelmed liberal groups in terms of money spent on politics, an analysis of Internal Revenue Service and FEC records shows.”

Furthermore, their analysis showed, “Of the 21 organizations that received rulings from the IRS after January 1, 2010, and filed FEC reports in 2010 or 2012, 13 were conservative. They outspent the liberal groups in that category by a factor of nearly 34-to-1....”

...Karl Rove’s Crossroads is the biggest spender, reporting spending more than $87.9 million since 2010, but it’s still waiting to be officially approved as tax exempt. Gee, do you think the IRS will be able to be objective when it comes to Crossroads’ overtly political purpose, or will they feel pressured to rubber stamp Karl so as not to cause offense...? :rollseyes:

http://www.politicususa.com/conservative-nonprofits-received-tax-exempt-status-outspent-liberals-34-to-1.html

The total # of tea party groups that were not given tax exempt status from the IRS when they asked for it is zero.

How much more unfair can the Obama administration be to Koch Brothers funded astro-turf front groups that were founded under the idea that President Obama is not a legitimate President and a threat to America?



This whole IRS "scandal" is just Benghazi spelled another way. Made up bullshit.
Don't spread bullshit on toast and tell me to eat it up it and tell me it's just country style apple butter.

Does anyone else smell a Turd?

[Peter1469]

We will find out eventually. Several Tea Party(ies) groups are going to sue the IRS. Discovery in a civil suit is a bitch.

[Cigar]

We will find out eventually. Several Tea Party(ies) groups are going to sue the IRS. Discovery in a civil suit is a bitch.

The Commission on Hope, Growth and Opportunity is a 501(c)(4) organization reportedly set up by lobbyist Scott Reed, which told (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/17/us/politics/hope-growth-and-opportunity-shows-limits-of-disclosure-rules.html?_r=0) the IRS when it applied for social welfare status that it would not spend money on political campaigns. In fact, Reed boasted (http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2010/10/04/122391/health-insurer-attack/) to reporters that he had sought big donations from the health insurance, energy and banking industry to run ads against Democrats. According to disclosures, CHGO broke the primary activity (http://www.citizensforethics.org/page/-/PDFs/Legal/4-26-12_CHGO_IRS_Complaint_Supplement.pdf?nocdn=1) threshold and spent 53 percent of its funds during the midterm elections on political advertising. The group spent big on defeating lawmakers like John Spratt (D-SC).

The American Justice Partnership is a 501(c)(4) group run in part by (http://www.republicreport.org/2012/corporate-front-corporate-board/) Republican consultants Dan Pero and Cleta Mitchell. In 2010, the group spent 77 percent of its funds moving money (http://990s.foundationcenter.org/990_pdf_archive/202/202222409/202222409_201012_990O.pdf) to political attack ad groups like the American Future Fund or to political action committees like the “Michigan Republican Party Admin Account.” Part of the remainder of the funds appears to have been spent on consulting fees to the board members of the group.


The American Future Fund is a 501(c)(4) group set up by a number of Republican operatives, and has aired millions of dollars (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/08/10/511559/better-know-a-right-wing-attack-group-american-future-fund/) in attack ads against President Obama and Democratic candidates for Congress. In 2010, the group spent 15.3 million of its 21.3 million expense budget (http://990s.foundationcenter.org/990_pdf_archive/260/260620554/260620554_201012_990O.pdf) on media consultants. AFF reportedly used its funds on television attack ads, direct mail against candidates and political telemarketing. In other words, the group spent 71 percent of its funds on political purposes.


The 60 Plus Association is a front group designed by Republican operatives to appeal to senior citizens. The group’s budget swelled during the 2010 midterm campaign. Through June of 2010 (http://990s.foundationcenter.org/990_pdf_archive/541/541564919/541564919_201006_990O.pdf), the group spent about $15.5 million, $11.5 million of which went to media-buying and direct mail firms for campaign advertisements—74 percent. One set of ads deceptively claimed (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcn-_njM_Dc) congressional Democrats voted to cut $500 billion from Medicare, failing to note that actual cuts were to Medicare Advantage, not to regular Medicare beneficiaries. As Jim Martin, the head of the group told me last year, though the organization touts itself as a voice for seniors (http://www.republicreport.org/2012/exclusive-60-plus-association-attack-ad-group-claiming-represent-seniors-concedes-actually-represents-corporations/), the group openly solicited corporate donors as well.



It’s clear why these Republican operatives used 501(c)(4) organizations as tools to move millions in political money. Big publicly traded corporations have been eager to exploit the Citizens United decision but have avoided Super PACs because Super PACs face regular disclosure requirements. 501(c)(4) never have to disclose donors. For instance, health insurer Aetna accidentally revealed that it had provided $3 million (http://money.cnn.com/2012/06/14/news/economy/aetna-political-contributions/index.htm) to the American Action Network, a fact the company apparently wanted to keep secret.

The IRS 501(c)(4) system is horribly broken, but it seems the scandal surrounding added scrutiny for Tea Party groups will not fix any of the problems. The IRS should focus on big players that skirt the law, especially the ones proven to have passed the 50 percent threshold, as I’ve documented above.


And there are many ways to fix systemic issues with the IRS that go beyond investigating sham groups. For one, the minimal disclosure system for 501(c)(4) groups is only in paper/CD format and is displayed to the public over a year after the money is spent. That’s why we still have little to no data on new Democratic groups, like Priorities USA, that recently began mimicking Republican 501(c)(4) organizations that were so active in the 2010 election cycle. Moreover, PublicResource.org (http://public.resource.org/)’s Carl Malamud has a proposal (https://bulk.resource.org/irs.gov/eo/doc/irs.gov.20130414.pdf) to digitize all the 501(c)(4) disclosures so the public and press can review them, and well, make a decision about “primary purpose” for themselves.




Read more: http://www.thenation.com/blog/174458/five-501c4-groups-might-have-broken-law#ixzz2U8bCoiDT


I really do how The GOP and The Tea Party push this to the end ... :wink:

[Cigar]

Republicans Claiming Tax Exempt Status May Have Conspired to Hide Illegal DonationsIt is not unusual for convicted criminals to characterize themselves as victims, and as a rule they blame law enforcement, judges, and district attorneys for doing their jobs and cry they were unfairly persecuted despite mountains of evidence they committed a crime. It is part of a mindset inherent in criminals who often believe the crime they committed was justified, or to portray law enforcement and the judicial system as unfairly tyrannizing them regardless they were caught red-handed or confessed to violating the law. Under normal circumstances, only corrections officers are privy to whiny criminals’ persistent complaints they were maltreated by “the system,” and as a rule the louder they complain, the guiltier they are. Over the past ten days, all Americans have witnessed firsthand Republicans and teabags complaining they were singled out for persecution by the government, and they have taken a page right out of convicted felons’ book and accused an enforcement agency, the Internal Revenue Service, of abusive treatment despite they were doing their jobs to prevent violations of tax and campaign law, and the cries of scandal, cover-up, and persecution inform there is a conspiracy underlying the alleged scandal.

The faux outrage over the I.R.S. doing its due diligence in scrutinizing political activists’ applications for tax exempt status as social welfare organizations is shining a spotlight on conservative’s dirty practice of concealing dark money being spent on campaigns. Instead of keeping quiet and letting the controversy die down, conservatives are giving the rest of the country an opportunity to look closely into Republican attempts to circumvent tax and campaign laws. As it turns out, the groups claiming they promoted social welfare may have conspired to conceal illegal campaign donations as well as protect their donors if they illegally deducted contributions to a tax exempt “social welfare charity” they would be disallowed from claiming if they gave to Political Action Committees or directly to any particular campaign.

The reality is that the dark money so-called conservative 501(c)(4) “social welfare” organizations spent on conservative candidates was dirty money, and Karl Rove’s Crossroads GPS, Koch brothers’ Americans for Prosperity, and various teabagger patriot clubs committed perjury if they told the IRS they would not participate in political campaigns. If any of the so-called social welfare organizations assisted donors to write off illegal campaign contributions, they must face I.R.S. audits to determine their donors and if they gave them permission to write off their political donations under the guise of charitable contributions.

According to IRS Publication 557, Tax-Exempt Status for Your Organization, “A donor can deduct a charitable contribution of $250 or more only if the donor has a written acknowledgment from the charitable organization. The donor is responsible for requesting and obtaining written acknowledgment from the donee.” An extensive audit will determine if any of the conservative groups gave written acknowledgments to donors, or if they requested said acknowledgment, but at the very least the largest groups appear to be guilty of perjury.

-

Full article here: http://www.politicususa.com/republicans-claiming-tax-exempt-status-conspired-hide-illegal-donations.html

[Ravi]

I think that ALL non-profits should be scrutinized down to the smallest period on their application. It should be very difficult to get tax exempt status for politicking, if it should be granted at all. The IRS, if all this is true and I haven't really been following it, should not have singled out one group for scrutiny but should have scrutinized everyone.

That said I find it hysterically funny and ironic that the teapees were sticking out their greedy little hands for a tax break.

[Cigar]

I think that ALL non-profits should be scrutinized down to the smallest period on their application. It should be very difficult to get tax exempt status for politicking, if it should be granted at all. The IRS, if all this is true and I haven't really been following it, should not have singled out one group for scrutiny but should have scrutinized everyone.

That said I find it hysterically funny and ironic that the teapees were sticking out their greedy little hands for a tax break.

That's what I said a week ago ... The Tea party Republicans are going to get exactly what they are asking for.

[patrickt]

Amazing. Some consider wanting to government to take less of your money as greedy. Libspeak is hard to believe sometimes.

Of course, for liberals, nothing they do involves politics. George Soros is an American patriot and the Koch brothers are evil incarnate. Hard to believe.

[Peter1469]

End all of these tax breaks and you won't have to get excited when right wing groups use the legislated breaks.

Why won't you do that? Too close to home?

[jillian]

End all of these tax breaks and you won't have to get excited when right wing groups use the legislated breaks.

Why won't you do that? Too close to home?

they should stop farm subsidies. ive always wondered why socializing agriculture is ok with the same people who think we shouldn't offer people health coverage.

[Mainecoons]

Changing the topic?

[Ravi]

End all of these tax breaks and you won't have to get excited when right wing groups use the legislated breaks.

Why won't you do that? Too close to home?Are you talking to me? If so, I am pretty much opposed to tax exempt entities unless they are audited heavily and are actually spending what they take in on their cause instead of on salaries and state of the art electronics.

[Peter1469]

Are you talking to me? If so, I am pretty much opposed to tax exempt entities unless they are audited heavily and are actually spending what they take in on their cause instead of on salaries and state of the art electronics.

I wasn't responding to you. I do think that tax exempt entities get audited regularly.

But what about my idea of ending all tax breaks? Like it?

[Ravi]

Sure, I would be okay with a flat tax with a threshold of the first 10 or 20K tax free.

[simpsonofpg]

Changing the topic?
Of course but if it were abololished we would be amaze how some of the things we take for granted, Like Mile.

[Peter1469]

Sure, I would be okay with a flat tax with a threshold of the first 10 or 20K tax free.

That would be good. The Fair Tax would be better.

[jillian]

Sure, I would be okay with a flat tax with a threshold of the first 10 or 20K tax free.

how to you gauge income under such a tax system. it wouldn't seem that it would allow for deducting the cost of business operations.

[Ransom]

how to you gauge income under such a tax system. it wouldn't seem that it would allow for deducting the cost of business operations.

How to we gauge income now? (D)=tax exemption (R)=taxable income