IRS to formalize censorship against Conservative groups

[JettaKnight]

.

 

[Purdue Plinker]

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.

There are a lot of things illegal that could be changed, but how to deal with them isn't to try to sneak around them. I personally don't like people who want to influence politics to side-step laws.

I think people don't want to think that some anonymous Illuminati could control what candidates they get to choose from. Groups of people who pool their resources can follow protocol. Without 527s or 501s there wouldn't be tax benefits that they provide.

That's a much larger topic. . . I dunno if that would work out or ever be supported by the people in power or the people who finance their campaigns, but there ought to be some real tax reform.

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.

They apparently did for "progress" and "occupy" but not to the same degree.

Did anyone ever launch a petition for the IRS to review / remove OFA's 501(c) status?

 

[IndyDave1776]

This is not a bad thing. Don't see why anyone should get a free pass.

Stop and think about what your are saying. How does respecting anyone's exercise of free speech, individually or collectively, constitute a free pass? You may also consider that the 'Chicago way' easily works with allowing two different sets of rules as enforced. I would think that Eric Holder's very selective enforcement of law, even in egregious cases, would settle any questions here.

 

[poptab]

How is political activity not protected speech? Organizations are just groups of individuals. How do they make a distinction?
This isn't a church activity it's just a group of people from church x getting together. Replace church x with organization y.

Clearly the solution is to abolish the irs and the federal government

 

[longbarrel]

Why not look for "union" or "united workers" in the name or, "organizing" or "action".

What does this mean? Last time I checked, most labor unions were "for profit" businesses.

 

[jamil]

There are a lot of things illegal that could be changed, but how to deal with them isn't to try to sneak around them. I personally don't like people who want to influence politics to side-step laws.

I think people don't want to think that some anonymous Illuminati could control what candidates they get to choose from. Groups of people who pool their resources can follow protocol. Without 527s or 501s there wouldn't be tax benefits that they provide.

That's a much larger topic. . . I dunno if that would work out or ever be supported by the people in power or the people who finance their campaigns, but there ought to be some real tax reform.


They apparently did for "progress" and "occupy" but not to the same degree.

Did anyone ever launch a petition for the IRS to review / remove OFA's 501(c) status?

I favor rule of law. If the law is wrongheaded or hurtful, then abolish it. But, if you're not going to enforce the law as stringently with your friends as with your enemies, the law is already a sham. People shouldn't get to sneak around the law, but neither should they get to use the law to punish their enemies, and reward their friends.

What does this mean? Last time I checked, most labor unions were "for profit" businesses.

That's the point. They are for profit. But they typically get 501(c)4 status. They don't pay taxes per se. But they are supposed to pay taxes on political contributions. So why not "profile" them then, if the IRS is hell bent on equally enforcing the law. My assertion is that the new rules are not about equal, consistent enforcement. They're about further obfuscating unequal enforcement for political gain.

 

[Mark 1911]

Food for thought:

Article 2 of President Nixon's Impeachment

Using the powers of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in disregard of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has repeatedly engaged in conduct violating the constitutional rights of citizens, impairing the due and proper administration of justice and the conduct of lawful inquiries, or contravening the laws governing agencies of the executive branch and the purposed of these agencies.

This conduct has included one or more of the following:

He has, acting personally and through his subordinates and agents, endeavoured to obtain from the Internal Revenue Service, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, confidential information contained in income tax returns for purposed not authorized by law, and to cause, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, income tax audits or other income tax investigations to be intitiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner.