Skip to main content

View Diary: Liberals Outrage On IRS Tea Party Scrutiny Unjustified & Foolish (VIDEO) (96 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Had they decided to look at all new 501-c4s... (8+ / 0-)

    ... then you'd have a case.  If they singled out Tea Party groups, that isn't legit (though any investigation should also include the Bush Administration efforts to de-fund the left).

    •  Don't the words "Tea Party" in a group's name (15+ / 0-)

      suggest to you that that group may be organized for the purpose of politicking, and not merely for (say) support of public policy discussions?

      I think a very legitimate case can be made that groups with those words in the title deserve additional scrutiny before being granted tax-exempt status, just as groups with words like, say, "Green Party might also deserve such scrutiny. This is not about political bias; it's about identifying groups that aren't appropriate for tax-exempt status.

      Let us all have the strength to see the humanity in our enemies, and the courage to let them see the humanity in ourselves.

      by Nowhere Man on Mon May 13, 2013 at 07:06:33 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  So the road to tax exempt nirvana is paved with (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        erush1345

        weasel words.

      •  Does it also (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        erush1345

        Deserve for these groups (and our groups next time), to be forced to reveal their donor and volunteer lists?  Because WE are on some of those lists, too.

        •  YES!!!! Citizens United is an affront to democracy (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          merrywidow, Tonedevil
        •  This is something I want to understand more (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Nowhere Man, Catte Nappe, Tonedevil

          Did the IRS get individual donor and volunteer lists?  Or, was it more of a general nature?

          As a CPA who has dealt with the IRS on different matters, I am not trying to split hairs here, there is a big difference.

          For example, if the IRS asks "how many donors do you have", this is legitimate.  If a group had only one donor, or one donor provided say 80% of the donations, then a question arises as to whether that organization has a social welfare purpose, or whether it is just doing the bidding of that one donor.

          Another: "who are your donors / volunteers? Corporations? Individuals? Other non-profits? etc."

          Perfectly legitimate.  If we find that all the donors are political lobbyists, then that raises a question as to the purpose of the group.  If we find that a number of Section 527 groups are the donors, again, potential problem.

          Another: "if you have corporate donors, are these public companies? what industries do they hail from?

          Again, legitimate - are these public companies trying to get around financial statement disclosures? are they all from a specific industry group and thus again we have a red flag for political lobbying versus educational or other social welfare purpose.

          If they went right to a request for the specific names of individual donors/volunteers, then I have a problem. But if the inquiries were of the type above, then this is pretty much standard procedure.

          Liberalism is trust of the people tempered by prudence. Conservatism is distrust of the people tempered by fear. ~William E. Gladstone, 1866

          by absdoggy on Tue May 14, 2013 at 09:18:30 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  They are allowed (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        johnny wurster, erush1345

        to, as you say "politik". So long as it is related to policies and not candidates, all of their money can go to political advertising. Perfectly legal. Just as the Green Party is allowed to spend all of their money promoting their causes. There is no limitation on policy spending.

      •  actually the advent of the TP marked a golden (6+ / 0-)

        opportunity for every con man and grifter  in the country as many professional "perpetually outraged" types fought over the TP brand and who was qualified to speak for the TP and even more important to draw fat six and seven figure salaries.  It was the greatest gold rush since '49 as wingers saw gold in that thar outrage.

        IRS should have been paying a lot more attention to whom they were granting 501 status

      •  And other kinds of names? (0+ / 0-)

        What about names like "American Prosperity" or "Crossroads". How many other organzations deserving of scrutiny chose names that didn't use the words "tea party" or "conservative"?

        “Texas is a so-called red state, but you’ve got 10 million Democrats here in Texas. And …, there are a whole lot of people here in Texas who need us, and who need us to fight for them.” President Obama

        by Catte Nappe on Tue May 14, 2013 at 10:35:29 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  And other words? (0+ / 0-)

        Like "patriot" or "Constitution", that apparently got flagged? Not to mention, there is nothing inherent in "tea party" that would lead me to think they wouldn't stick to politicking on issues rather than endorsing specific candidates. You really don't need to name a candidate - it's easy enough to craft ads that make it clear from an "issue" perspective who the preferred candidate is. That they can do so is a flaw in the code, but doesn't excuse the IRS for targeting them.

        “Texas is a so-called red state, but you’ve got 10 million Democrats here in Texas. And …, there are a whole lot of people here in Texas who need us, and who need us to fight for them.” President Obama

        by Catte Nappe on Tue May 14, 2013 at 10:55:12 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Politico is reporting (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Nowhere Man

        (although it sounds more like an Onion story) that TheTeaParty.net, one of the targeted organizations, has announced that it will now support McConnell in the primary, since he has taken up their cause of proving they don't directly support anybody.

        So the answer to Nowhere Man's question would seem to be yes, having Tea Party in an organization's name might be a pretty efficient search parameter.

    •  That's silly (9+ / 0-)

      You ask the IRS to ignore the big flashing sign.

      Tea Party is a political organization.

    •  What if the Tea Party deserved to be singled out? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Tonedevil

      No one seems to understand this isn't just about fairness its about the IRS doing its duty to investigate those seeking tax exempt status who meet certain criteria.

      Its really hard to swallow that The Tea Party is primarily concerned with social welfare given its past behavior.
      I remember Ron Paul on stage discussing health care
      with the crowd cheering "Let him die" in reference to
      man who had no health care and become ill. How
      quickly we forget.

      Congress itself determines the criteria not the IRS.
      The criteria is very loosely worded and could use some
      firming up.

      Its seems the right is being very successful at playing its little game of "outrage theater" and getting the left all worked up over nothing.

      There is more to this story than meets the eye.
      Please check out Lawrence O'Donnell's LAST WORD for
      a greater understanding of the criteria the IRS is working with.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site