Skip to main content

View Diary: 501(c)(3)s, 501(c)(4)s, and the rest. A primer. (86 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  You're wrong on a few things. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nextstep, nargel

    1. Donors have to be disclosed to the IRS; just not publicly.
    2. The IRS hasn't rejected any of these applications. They were hardly 99% bad.

    •  Err.... (0+ / 0-)
       Just for starters, ... (0+ / 0-)

      the IRS went WAY over the line when it demanded that donors be identified.

       Or not (3+ / 0-)

      From the Wonkblog piece:

      "Are any of your donors ... (7+ / 0-)

      ... political parties, political committees, or otherwise regulated as political entities?"

      Register now for Netroots Nation in Silicon Valley - June 20-23, 2013

      by Adam B on Thu May 16, 2013 at 01:41:51 PM PDT

      [ Parent | Reply to This | Recommend ]

      This chain of posts makes NO SENSE in relation to your reply to me.

      The first post claims a line has been crossed.
      The second contends it has not, and why.
      The third is you appearing to provide a means to satisfy the second while not committing the overstep alleged in the first...

      ...but that relies on NOT disclosing donors to the IRS... which you then claim they have to anyway... so what's wrong with the IRS asking for information that they're required to be given anyway (before approving the application, not after the bull is through the gate)?

      Is it that, as part of the application process, the information would end up public? Well, first, boohoo. Second, it means it's that bit that would require changing here to satisfy some... not that the IRS overstepped anything.

      As to the second point... you confuse two concepts "IRS hasn't rejected" "hardly 99% bad" as mutually exclusive. It's possible for them to have been bad AND for the IRS to not have rejected them. In fact, that was my contention regarding "what gets me"... I didn't think I made it subtle or confusing. I really have little to no belief that the vast majority of "tea party" identifiable 501c4 submitted post CU are anything but ways to conceal donors for spending for/against candidates in the ludicrously described "non coordinated" manner outlined by Messrs Colbert, Stewart & Potter.

      In short, the real scandal is not that so many were flagged for extra scrutiny (due to keywords that were political, but despite that they were, in and of themselves political, let alone of a care as to which affiliation)... but that so many ended up passing! (perhaps because of a fear of the optics of, I don't know, calling out a bunch of fouls that turned out to be being committed almost exclusively by one political affiliation...)

      I'd say if Crossroads ends up passing it will be game set & match for my position on this...

      ...but you know what? They got to do their damage anyway.

      They and their already exempted ilk at a rate 34 times that of groups identifiable as liberal:

      Please note, that rate DOESN'T include crossroads.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site