The Real Problem Behind The IRS Scandal

[icenine]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...,4190991.story

[Zeke]

The decision by agents in Cincinnati to flag groups that appeared to have a conservative ideology was "very bad," said Brett Kappel, a campaign finance lawyer at the firm Arent Fox in Washington. "But I don't think it was politically motivated; I think it's incompetence."

Because, from the very drafting of the statute, things are murky.

Blaming the administration on this one is like a mechanic being unable to accurately repair your 1956 Crown Victoria due to badly written manuals then getting mad at the current President of Ford.

The best he can do is become aware of an issue then take steps to correct it.

[icenine]

Originally Posted by Zeke

The decision by agents in Cincinnati to flag groups that appeared to have a conservative ideology was "very bad," said Brett Kappel, a campaign finance lawyer at the firm Arent Fox in Washington. "But I don't think it was politically motivated; I think it's incompetence."

Because, from the very drafting of the statute, things are murky.

Blaming the administration on this one is like a mechanic being unable to accurately repair your 1956 Crown Victoria due to badly written manuals then getting mad at the current President of Ford.

The best he can do is become aware of an issue then take steps to correct it.

I would like to see that actual list of all groups that applied...were there a disproportionate amount of right wing groups? How many progressive ones?
We need to see what the talley is.

[whell]

Right. See? its not anyone's fault, really. Its just the rules are hard to understand.

BULL SHIT, LA Times!! The rules are what they are quite by design, to empower the political class. The political class WANTS the donations that flow through these organizations. AND they want the donations at full value, which is why congress allows the various tax exempt groups to exist in the first place. And they don't want the IRS to be looking too closely at the money that flows through these groups.

The REAL story is that someone at the IRS actually decided to follow up on the demands of the likes of Baucus, Schummer, and some of the other village idiots in the Senate, and ad hoc a way to cast a hyper-jaundiced eye at VERY SPECIFIC groups which support VERY SPECIFIC ideas. The Times would love to believe that this was bureaucratic bungling, but all of these related events add up to far more than a coincidence.

Meanwhile, Lisa Meyers at NBC is reporting this morning that the IRS knew about this last year but specifically decided to sit on the whole thing until after the election. Brilliant!!

Jeezus H Christmas - how stupid do you have to be to even publish an article like that?!

[finnbow]

Here's a good op-ed piece on the subject in which it asserts that the squirrelyness of the 501(c)(4) exemption makes problems such all this all but unavoidable. His recommendation?

Let’s get rid of 501(c)(4) status. Encourage nonprofits to forswear political activity and become 501(c)(3)s. If they can’t stomach political chastity, let them become 527s: groups still exempt from taxes but required to disclose their donors.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...7_story_2.html

Seems like a no-brainer to me.

[piece-itpete]

Is Obamacare also loose?

Government workers are as political as anyone.

Pete

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Here's a good op-ed piece on the subject in which it asserts that the squirrelyness of the 501(c)(4) exemption makes problems such all this all but unavoidable. His recommendation?

Let’s get rid of 501(c)(4) status. Encourage nonprofits to forswear political activity and become 501(c)(3)s. If they can’t stomach political chastity, let them become 527s: groups still exempt from taxes but required to disclose their donors.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...7_story_2.html

Seems like a no-brainer to me.

Or, let's forget about tax exempt status for all of them. Easiest solution of all.

However, at least WaPo seems to be demonstrating more intelligence on this issue than the LA Times.

[icenine]

Mike,
The Citizen's United case sort of opened this can of worms. It has to be seen in that light. If all of a sudden there is a huge increase in groups applying for tax-exempt status then how would they (IRS) go about making sure they were legit?

[merrylander]

The goofy part of all this is let an individual make a donation to any politician and they need your life story. So if corporations are people why not get their life story out in the open.

[icenine]

Originally Posted by merrylander

The goofy part of all this is let an individual make a donation to any politician and they need your life story. So if corporations are people why not get their life story out in the open.

It is the best of both worlds for "corporations".....they can donate all they want to a campaign, but cannot be prosecuted like an individual. I mean can someone put GM or Walmart in jail? Brillantly evil....

we really need to deep six Citizen's United for the benefit of both parties and democracy.