• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Liberals: No scandals, just trumped up BS

sangha said:
Because they suspected that the groups were ineligible for the 501(c)4 status
Click to expand...

But didn't you just say they didn't have anything to do with where a group of that status?
 
iliveonramen said:
Because they claimed to be primarily social welfare groups. There was no scrutiny for groups that claimed to be what they were...political groups influencing elections.
Click to expand...

Really? So a group with a total budget of $16,000 was going to influence the Presidential election? And here I thought it took millions to win one.
 
Heebie Jeebie said:
Really? Then why was the IRS investigating their applications?
Click to expand...

Because that is their job. The fact remains that most all the groups got their approval and even if they didn't they simply could file for the exemption on their returns. Much ado about nothing. The real scandal is that most any political group can get the "social welfare" exemption. This is what caused this problem. It is a bad law and the IRS did a bad job interpreting it.
 
Heebie Jeebie said:
Really? So a group with a total budget of $16,000 was going to influence the Presidential election? And here I thought it took millions to win one.
Click to expand...

So what...they were a social welfare group? Helping the elderly? Schooling kids? How much of their budget went to social welfare...and no social welfare isn't "educating" individuals that you don't like Obama.
 
iguanaman said:
Because that is their job. The fact remains that most all the groups got their approval and even if they didn't they simply could file for the exemption on their returns. Much ado about nothing. The real scandal is that most any political group can get the "social welfare" exemption. This is what caused this problem. It is a bad law and the IRS did a bad job interpreting it.
Click to expand...

It's so much ado about nothing that the person in charge took the 5th. Right.
 
iliveonramen said:
So what...they were a social welfare group? Helping the elderly? Schooling kids? How much of their budget went to social welfare...and no social welfare isn't "educating" individuals that you don't like Obama.
Click to expand...

You are the one that claimed they were influencing the election. So for $16,000 you can influence the election?

I can understand how a 504 c 4 like Move On can influence an election with the million dollar budgets and political fund raising and endorsements would be investigated and required to send in copies of all their donors, facebook postings, tweets, grocery lists, and what the officers were thinking but to claim an organization with a total years budget of $16,000 would influence a Presidential election it takes a special kind of stupid.

So how did the investigation of Move On turn out? Oh yeah, they weren't investigated.
 
Heebie Jeebie said:
It's so much ado about nothing that the person in charge took the 5th. Right.
Click to expand...

She was threatened with criminal charges and her lawyer told he to plead the 5th. That was her right as an American and in no way changes what happened. No harm was done by any of this and as soon as it was realized that their was a problem, everyone got their approvals. The groups did not even need the approval to declare the exemption on their returns anyway.

fivethirtyeight-0515-501c4-blog480-v2.png
 
sangha said:
Can someone translate this into English?
Click to expand...

Why? You don't seem to understand English so I tried something you might understand. Apparently you can't. I'll try another way when you post something else wrong, which won't be long in coming.
 
Heebie Jeebie said:
You are the one that claimed they were influencing the election. So for $16,000 you can influence the election?
.
Click to expand...

The amount of money is irrelevant.....if you claim a certain tax status it doesn't matter if you're effective or not...you have to fit the criteria.

I can understand how a 504 c 4 like Move On can influence an election with the million dollar budgets and political fund raising and endorsements would be investigated and required to send in copies of all their donors, facebook postings, tweets, grocery lists, and what the officers were thinking but to claim an organization with a total years budget of $16,000 would influence a Presidential election it takes a special kind of stupid.

So how did the investigation of Move On turn out? Oh yeah, they weren't investigated
Click to expand...

Yes...MoveOn.org and Crossroads the respective giants on each side of the aisle weren't required to answer additional questions because they already had the status. They applied and recieved the status before the IRS started additional scrutiny for organizations filing for 501 c4 status. This wasn't an "investigation" it was an additional form organizations claiming to be social welfare groups had to fill out.

Maybe you need to get your information from sources that actually go deeper into the weeds than "Obama investigating the Tea Party! MoveOn.org not investigated!!!!!"
 
iliveonramen said:
The amount of money is irrelevant.....if you claim a certain tax status it doesn't matter if you're effective or not...you have to fit the criteria.



Yes...MoveOn.org and Crossroads the respective giants on each side of the aisle weren't required to answer additional questions because they already had the status. They applied and recieved the status before the IRS started additional scrutiny for organizations filing for 501 c4 status. This wasn't an "investigation" it was an additional form organizations claiming to be social welfare groups had to fill out.

Maybe you need to get your information from sources that actually go deeper into the weeds than "Obama investigating the Tea Party! MoveOn.org not investigated!!!!!"
Click to expand...

And yet you want to give a pass to those organizations who agree with you. Typical.

So you are saying that groups like Move On should just be grandfathered in even though they may not meet the criteria now? That they shouldn't have to provide the same things as smaller organizations have to provide, listed on pages 4 and 5 of the link?

http://media.aclj.org/pdf/lois-lerner-targeted-irs-inquiry-letter-3-16-2012.pdf
 
Heebie Jeebie said:
And yet you want to give a pass to those organizations who agree with you. Typical.]
Click to expand...

Yes I love the Karl Rove led Crossroads. We see eye to eye on everything! *heavy sarcasm*

So you are saying that groups like Move On should just be grandfathered in even though they may not meet the criteria now? That they shouldn't have to provide the same things as smaller organizations have to provide, listed on pages 4 and 5 of the link?
Click to expand...
There is no grandfathered in. Which Tea Party group has been denied the status? Yes...they shouldn't have to reapply for their status. That is dumb. If they were getting rid of allowing political groups to use the status (which they should) then MoveOn and Crossroads should lose their current status.

Cry me a ****ing river...you exploit the fact that corporations can donate so weasel in and claim a status that allows you to not pay taxes or disclose your donors. None of them should be given the status but I don't give two damns about whiners that exploit the system and have to jump through an additional hoop.
 
iliveonramen said:
Yes I love the Karl Rove led Crossroads. We see eye to eye on everything! *heavy sarcasm*


There is no grandfathered in. Which Tea Party group has been denied the status? Yes...they shouldn't have to reapply for their status. That is dumb. If they were getting rid of allowing political groups to use the status (which they should) then MoveOn and Crossroads should lose their current status.

Cry me a ****ing river...you exploit the fact that corporations can donate so weasel in and claim a status that allows you to not pay taxes or disclose your donors. None of them should be given the status but I don't give two damns about whiners that exploit the system and have to jump through an additional hoop.
Click to expand...

So you are of the opinion that once you gain 501 c 4 status you should never have to prove you are still following the rules?

Keep making excuses. The fact is you are on the losing end of this argument. But it's fun to watch.
 
Heebie Jeebie said:
So you are of the opinion that once you gain 501 c 4 status you should never have to prove you are still following the rules?

Keep making excuses. The fact is you are on the losing end of this argument. But it's fun to watch.
Click to expand...

No...I'm saying that if you add additional hoops in the application process everybody shouldn't have to reapply. Thanks for completely getting wrong my point.
 
iliveonramen said:
The amount of money is irrelevant.....if you claim a certain tax status it doesn't matter if you're effective or not...you have to fit the criteria.
Click to expand...

And yet organizations with less than $25,000 opertaing budgets were routinely granted 501 c 4 status in the past. Just a coincidence that changed I guess.
 
iliveonramen said:
No...I'm saying that if you add additional hoops in the application process everybody shouldn't have to reapply. Thanks for completely getting wrong my point.
Click to expand...

You had no point other than to say that once you get it you need never prove you still meet the requirements.
 
Heebie Jeebie said:
And yet organizations with less than $25,000 opertaing budgets were routinely granted 501 c 4 status in the past. Just a coincidence that changed I guess.
Click to expand...

Why are you so stuck on the budgets of the organizations. It has nothing to do with budgets. It's a tax status. It's fitting a specific criteria. It doens't matter if a mom and pop burger shop loses 20 bucks a year they are not a non-profit organization. It doesn't matter if a health insurance company has revenue of 10's of billions of dollars they can still be non-profit.
 
iliveonramen said:
Why are you so stuck on the budgets of the organizations.
Click to expand...

Because in the past it was used as a criteria for being given 501 c 4 status. Organizations with budgets under $25,000 were routinely approved. But now it just that they are enforcing the law better, at least on groups that had Tea Party or Patriot in their name.
 
Heebie Jeebie said:
Because in the past it was used as a criteria for being given 501 c 4 status. Organizations with budgets under $25,000 were routinely approved. But now it just that they are enforcing the law better, at least on groups that had Tea Party or Patriot in their name.
Click to expand...

The 25,000 number dealt with the maintaining of proper records and filing required annual tax returns. Making under 25,000 didn't provide a blank check for declaring yourself a non-profit and definately not a social welfare group.
 
iliveonramen said:
The 25,000 number dealt with the maintaining of proper records and filing required annual tax returns. Making under 25,000 didn't provide a blank check for declaring yourself a non-profit and definately not a social welfare group.
Click to expand...

And groups under that number were routinely given speedy approval. Except recently.
 
Heebie Jeebie said:
And groups under that number were routinely given speedy approval. Except recently.
Click to expand...

Groups previously were social welfare groups.

Where exactly do we disagree here.

The IRS has a mission to enforce US tax laws mandated by Congress

The IRS should give higher scrutinity to organizations claiming to be "primarily social welfare groups" that have nothing to do with social welfare

The criteria they used to determine which organizations were needed for additional scrutinity in the application process was very flawed and did unfairly target a specific group.

Then of course there is my opinion...all 501 c4's that are social welfare groups should be stripped of the status and no political groups should be able to get the status.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom