What current IRS imbroglio is distracting attention from..

[xyzzy]

... pretty much outright tax fraud by right-wing 501(c)4 groups.
Which may be what prompted their targeting in the first place.

For example, Crossroads GPS, which anyone who lives in a swing state
is very familiar with, stated in their application to the IRS for
501(c)4 status that their efforts to influence elections would be
"minimal." When all was said and done, they had spent $70 million.

The following groups claimed in their applications that they would not
spend money to influence elections but ended up spending over $5
million combined in support of Mitt Romney Americans for Responsible
Leadership. Freedom Path, Rightchange.com II, America Is Not Stupid
and A Better America Now.

Well played VRWC, well played. As they say, the best defense is a
good offense and we are seeing that now.

http://www.propublica.org/article/what-karl-roves-dark-money-nonprofit-told-the-irs

[xyzzy]

> http://www.propublica.org/article/what-karl-roves-dark-money-nonprofi...

In fact, it's interesting that it did pretty much blow up right after
Sen. Whitehouse called for an investigation into right-wing 501(c)4
fraud, isn't it?

http://www.propublica.org/article/senator-pushes-for-investigation-of-false-statements-by-dark-money-groups

[CheeseHusker dos]

> http://www.propublica.org/article/what-karl-roves-dark-money-nonprofi...

And if this is the case, then those groups should be nailed to the
wall. Furthermore, the IRS should have said something earlier and at
the time that "this is why we're asking and delaying". Not terribly
complicated. However, it still doesn't explain the disparity of
processing delays - unless you're willing to accept on good faith that
only a "conservative" group would do such a thing.

McCardle had a nice article about this - that the big lesson here, is
another example of our Byzantine tax laws.

[xyzzy]

On May 18, 5:55 pm, CheeseHusker dos <jonrus...@yahoo.com> wrote:
 However, it still doesn't explain the disparity of
> processing delays - unless you're willing to accept on good faith that
> only a "conservative" group would do such a thing.
>
> McCardle had a nice article about this - that the big lesson here, is
> another example of our Byzantine tax laws.

According to one of the ProPublica articles, few liberal groups
applied.... apparently because they weren't committing tax fraud? Or
there were simply many fewer of them being formed during that time?

Draw your own conclusions from the exact quote:

Social welfare nonprofits are not required to apply to the IRS to
operate. Many politically active new conservative groups apply anyway.
Getting IRS approval can help with donations and help insulate groups
from further scrutiny. Many politically active new liberal nonprofits
have not applied.

[CheeseHusker dos]

We've already talked about the timing coming on the heels of the birth
of the Tea Party as a factor.

Still not a satisfactory answer - especially given what we've learned
so far.

And why AREN'T social welfare nonprofits required to register? Hell,
that's the Rovian answer right there.....

BTW - I like how you slipped in "tax fraud" there. 7 groups might
have gone over the limits - therefore all current and new conservative
groups are actively engaged in tax fraud. Well played.

[xyzzy]

On May 18, 6:05 pm, CheeseHusker dos <jonrus...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On May 18, 4:59 pm, xyzzy <xyzzy.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 18, 5:55 pm, CheeseHusker dos <jonrus...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >   However, it still doesn't explain the disparity of
>
> > > processing delays - unless you're willing to accept on good faith that
> > > only a "conservative" group would do such a thing.
>
> > > McCardle had a nice article about this - that the big lesson here, is
> > > another example of our Byzantine tax laws.
>
> > According to one of the  ProPublica articles, few liberal groups
> > applied.... apparently because they weren't committing tax fraud?  Or
> > there were simply many fewer of them being formed during that time?
>
> > Draw your own conclusions from the exact quote:
>
> > Social welfare nonprofits are not required to apply to the IRS to
> > operate. Many politically active new conservative groups apply anyway.
> > Getting IRS approval can help with donations and help insulate groups
> > from further scrutiny. Many politically active new liberal nonprofits
> > have not applied.
>
> We've already talked about the timing coming on the heels of the birth
> of the Tea Party as a factor.
>
> Still not a satisfactory answer - especially given what we've learned
> so far.
>
> And why AREN'T social welfare nonprofits required to register?  Hell,
> that's the Rovian answer right there.....
>

They are only required to register if they want the benefits of
501(c)4 designation. One of which is ability to keep funders secret
while doing what is supposed to be a minor amount of political
advocacy

> BTW - I like how you slipped in "tax fraud" there.  7 groups might
> have gone over the limits - therefore all current and new conservative
> groups are actively engaged in tax fraud.  Well played.

One of those 7 groups is the biggest and most prominent one.

[Con Reeder, unhyphenated American]

And there are no lefty organizations like Media Matters and OFA? Give
me a break.

--
Find the grain of truth in criticism, chew it, and swallow
it. -- anonymous

[the_andr...@yahoo.com]

The failed economic policy of Obama, the looming train wreck of
Obamacare, the hard to believe it's worsh than Bush foreign policy of
Obama, Guantanamo Bay prison is still open.

Right?

[Eric Ramon]

On May 19, 11:10 am, "the_andrew_sm...@yahoo.com"

it's not clear to me what you're replying to but let me take these one
by one.

Failed economic policy of Obama - yes it is. The administration is
doing precious little for workers.
Looming train wreck of Obamacare - we might disagree on how it's going
to be a wreck but a wreck it'll be
Worse than Bush foreign policy - hard to say, certainly not clearly
better. Definitely worse than his campaign rhetoric
Guanatanamo still open - Republicans are at fault here but the Obama
plan is to relocate it and what would the point of that be? It would
be Gitmo North.

Ah, now that I read the title of the thread I see you must be
referring to how this is a distraction. Maybe you should write your
representative and tell him to stop screaming about the IRS thing and
focus on the important stuff.

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Sun, 19 May 2013 11:28:16 -0700 (PDT), Eric Ramon
<ramon...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Looming train wreck of Obamacare - we might disagree on how it's going
>to be a wreck but a wreck it'll be

I'm guessing the train wreck will be about the cost, i. e.,
pre-existing conditions causing premiums to skyrocket, states bailing
out and the government having to pay. WIll the money come from taxes,
increasing the deficit or a surcharge on plastic surgeons doing slant
eyes and yellow dye jobs?

Hugh

[the_andr...@yahoo.com]

I'll tell them to continue working on both.

[xyzzy]

On May 18, 11:20 pm, "Con Reeder, unhyphenated American"
<consta...@bill.perusion.com> wrote:

> On 2013-05-18, xyzzy <xyzzy.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > ... pretty much outright tax fraud by right-wing 501(c)4 groups.
> > Which may be what prompted their targeting in the first place.
>
> > For example, Crossroads GPS, which anyone who lives in a swing state
> > is very familiar with, stated in their application to the IRS for
> > 501(c)4 status that their efforts to influence elections would be
> > "minimal."  When all was said and done, they had spent $70 million.
>
> > The following groups claimed in their applications that they would not
> > spend money to influence elections but ended up spending over $5
> > million combined in support of Mitt Romney  Americans for Responsible
> > Leadership.  Freedom Path, Rightchange.com II, America Is Not Stupid
> > and A Better America Now.
>
> > Well played VRWC, well played.  As they say,  the best defense is a
> > good offense and we are seeing that now.
>

> >http://www.propublica.org/article/what-karl-roves-dark-money-nonprofi...

>
> And there are no lefty organizations like Media Matters and OFA? Give
> me a break.

Neither of those are 501(c)4 organizations. Keep trying.

[Con Reeder, unhyphenated American]

On 2013-05-19, xyzzy <xyzzy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 18, 11:20?pm, "Con Reeder, unhyphenated American"

><consta...@bill.perusion.com> wrote:
>> On 2013-05-18, xyzzy <xyzzy.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > ... pretty much outright tax fraud by right-wing 501(c)4 groups.
>> > Which may be what prompted their targeting in the first place.
>>
>> > For example, Crossroads GPS, which anyone who lives in a swing state
>> > is very familiar with, stated in their application to the IRS for
>> > 501(c)4 status that their efforts to influence elections would be

>> > "minimal." ?When all was said and done, they had spent $70 million.

>>
>> > The following groups claimed in their applications that they would not
>> > spend money to influence elections but ended up spending over $5

>> > million combined in support of Mitt Romney ?Americans for Responsible
>> > Leadership. ?Freedom Path, Rightchange.com II, America Is Not Stupid

>> > and A Better America Now.
>>

>> > Well played VRWC, well played. ?As they say, ?the best defense is a

>> > good offense and we are seeing that now.
>>
>> >http://www.propublica.org/article/what-karl-roves-dark-money-nonprofi...
>>
>> And there are no lefty organizations like Media Matters and OFA? Give
>> me a break.
>
> Neither of those are 501(c)4 organizations. Keep trying.

They are 501(c)3, which is essentially the same. Are you trying
to start parsing your arguments like the Obama administration
does, where they claim the CIA produced the Benghazi talking points
when in fact the CIA did it at White House and State direction?

--
Fast, reliable, cheap. Pick two and we'll talk.
-- unknown

[Wolfie]

"Con Reeder, unhyphenated American" wrote

>> Neither of those are 501(c)4 organizations. Keep trying.

> They are 501(c)3, which is essentially the same.

No, they aren't, simply on the basis of allowable political
activity.

[xyzzy]

Right. I'm an officer in a 501(c)3 organization, and in fact I'm the
one who does the annual filings with the IRS, so I know a little bit
about the requirements and the differences between the different
501(c) designations. To say they are equivalent is simply wrong.

501(c)3 organizations' primary purpose has to be charitable or
educational, they can't do direct political activity, and they aren't
allowed to be funded by a small group of big donors... there is a
"public support" test for 501(c)3s that is pretty stringent and
complicated but boils down to: at least 1/3 of a 501(c)3's funding has
to come from small donations from the general public. You can see how
this might be problematic for a political organization that's funded
by a one or a few millionaires and/or corporations.

Unlike 501(c)3s, 501(c)(4) organizations can do political activity as
long as it isn't their "primary purpose." But they can also accept
unlimited corporate donations or be fully funded by one or a few
donors (there is no "public support" test like a 501(c)3 has to
meet). Because of this, donations to 501(c)4s aren't tax
deductible. So the main benefits to 501(c)4 designation, as far as
I can tell, are the ability to keep your funders secret while doing
"minimal" political advocacy, and no requirement to have public
support.

Btw I was technically right but wrong in spirit on OFA. It is not a
501(c)4 and in fact has no IRS designation.. but has indicated its
intention to operate as a 501(c)4 and file for that status. Legally
they can operate for 27 months before filing their paperwork (a
loophole I'm surprised the right-wing groups didnt' take more full
advantage of, but they may have wanted to make sure they had the
designation in hand so they could assure their donors they would be
kept secret. If they applied and were turned down, their donors up to
then would be disclosed) . It will be interesting to see what
treatment OFA's application gets with all the light being shined on
this category now.

[Con Reeder, unhyphenated American]

On 2013-05-20, xyzzy <xyzzy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 19, 7:19?pm, "Wolfie" <bgbdw...@gte.net> wrote:
>> "Con Reeder, unhyphenated American" ?wrote
>>
>> >> Neither of those are 501(c)4 organizations. ?Keep trying.

Ah yes, we are parsing now. Big time.

I yield to your knowledge of tax-exempt organizations, and have no
intention to make an exhaustive analysis thereof. But to claim that
investigating publicly the highly-visible NAACP with lying about
targeting hundreds of small tax-exempts is ridiculous in the extreme,
and your attempt to claim that the collective Democratic shit doesn't
stink on tax-exempt organizations merely exposes another reek -- that
of odious obfuscation.

--
The only certain barrier to truth is the presumption that you already
have it. -- Chuck Missler

[Con Reeder, unhyphenated American]

On 2013-05-20, xyzzy <xyzzy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 19, 7:19?pm, "Wolfie" <bgbdw...@gte.net> wrote:
>> "Con Reeder, unhyphenated American" ?wrote
>>
>> >> Neither of those are 501(c)4 organizations. ?Keep trying.

[xyzzy]

On May 19, 11:14 pm, "Con Reeder, unhyphenated American"
<consta...@bill.perusion.com> wrote:

You could have saved me a lot of trouble just by saying "I claim they
are the same and have no intentino of learning if that's true or not"

> But to claim that
> investigating publicly the highly-visible NAACP with lying about
> targeting hundreds of small tax-exempts is ridiculous in the extreme,

Umm, we know about the IRS targeting because the administration ratted
it out.

> and your attempt to claim that the collective Democratic shit doesn't
> stink on tax-exempt organizations merely exposes another reek -- that
> of odious obfuscation.

You're the one who cited Media Matters, which does not do politicking
like 501(c)4 groups, as equivalent to them.

There are Dem 501(c)4s, sure.. But there are a lot less of them, and a
lot less money going into them, than the GOP ones. So yes, the GOP
shit stinks more if for no other reason that there's more of it.

[Con Reeder, unhyphenated American]

On 2013-05-20, xyzzy <xyzzy...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On May 19, 11:14?pm, "Con Reeder, unhyphenated American"

><consta...@bill.perusion.com> wrote:
>> On 2013-05-20, xyzzy <xyzzy.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On May 19, 7:19?pm, "Wolfie" <bgbdw...@gte.net> wrote:
>> >> "Con Reeder, unhyphenated American" ?wrote
>>
>> >> >> Neither of those are 501(c)4 organizations. ?Keep trying.
>> >> > They are 501(c)3, which is essentially the same.
>>
>> >> No, they aren't, simply on the basis of allowable political
>> >> activity.
>>

>> > Right. ?I'm ?an officer in a 501(c)3 organization, and in fact I'm the

>> > one who does the annual filings with the IRS, so I know a little bit
>> > about the requirements and the differences between the different

>> > 501(c) designations. ?To say they are equivalent is simply wrong.

>>
>> > 501(c)3 organizations' primary purpose has to be charitable or

>> > educational, they ?can't do direct political activity, and they aren't

>> > allowed to be funded by a small group of big donors... there is a
>> > "public support" test for 501(c)3s that is pretty stringent and
>> > complicated but boils down to: at least 1/3 of a 501(c)3's funding has

>> > to come from small donations from the general public. ?You can see how

>> > this might be problematic for a political organization that's funded
>> > by a one or a few millionaires and/or corporations.
>>
>> > Unlike 501(c)3s, 501(c)(4) organizations can do political activity as

>> > long as it isn't their "primary purpose." ?But they ?can also accept

>> > unlimited corporate donations or be fully funded by one or a few
>> > donors (there is no "public support" test like a 501(c)3 has to

>> > meet). ?Because of this, donations to 501(c)4s aren't tax
>> > deductible. ? ?So the main ?benefits to 501(c)4 designation, as far as

>> > I can tell, are the ability to keep your funders secret while doing
>> > "minimal" political advocacy, and no requirement to have public
>> > support.
>>
>> > Btw I was technically right but wrong in spirit on OFA. It is not a
>> > 501(c)4 and in fact has no IRS designation.. but has indicated its

>> > intention to operate as a 501(c)4 and file for that status. ?Legally

>> > they can operate for 27 months before filing their paperwork (a
>> > loophole I'm surprised the right-wing groups didnt' take more full
>> > advantage of, but they may have wanted to make sure they had the
>> > designation in hand so they could assure their donors they would be

>> > kept secret. ?If they applied and were turned down, their donors up to

>> > then would be disclosed) . It will be interesting to see what
>> > treatment OFA's application gets with all the light being shined on
>> > this category now.
>>
>> Ah yes, we are parsing now. Big time.
>>
>> I yield to your knowledge of tax-exempt organizations, and have no
>> intention to make an exhaustive analysis thereof.
>
> You could have saved me a lot of trouble just by saying "I claim they
> are the same and have no intentino of learning if that's true or not"
>
>> But to claim that
>> investigating publicly the highly-visible NAACP with lying about
>> targeting hundreds of small tax-exempts is ridiculous in the extreme,
>
> Umm, we know about the IRS targeting because the administration ratted
> it out.

Blatant untruth. We know about it because Congress demanded answers and
the administration had to investigate to shut them up.

>
>> and your attempt to claim that the collective Democratic shit doesn't
>> stink on tax-exempt organizations merely exposes another reek -- that
>> of odious obfuscation.
>
> You're the one who cited Media Matters, which does not do politicking
> like 501(c)4 groups, as equivalent to them.

*splorff*

You claim Media Matters doesn't do politicking? They are a full-service
talking points generator for the Democratic party.

> There are Dem 501(c)4s, sure.. But there are a lot less of them, and a
> lot less money going into them, than the GOP ones. So yes, the GOP
> shit stinks more if for no other reason that there's more of it.

Unions *more* than counterbalance this.

--
Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently equipped fool. -- unknown

[xyzzy]

On May 20, 12:47 pm, "Con Reeder, unhyphenated American"

You're conflating actively campaigning (running attack ads, for
example) with "educational" activities. I'll assume you're not doing
it intentionally.

There are plenty of right-wing 501(c)3 organizations that are similar
to Media Matters: For example: The Heritage Foundation and the
American Enterprise Institute come to mind right away. You can't
claim with a straight face that they are any less political than MM.
But the distinction you refuse to recognize is that they are all a
whole different category of actor than the 501(c)4. They all have
leanings but none of them actively campaign, endorse candidates, or
funnel money to candidates.

> > There are Dem 501(c)4s, sure.. But there are a lot less of them, and a
> > lot less money going into them, than the GOP ones.  So yes, the GOP
> > shit stinks more if for no other reason that there's more of it.
>
> Unions *more* than counterbalance this.

Unions disclose their funding.

[Con Reeder, unhyphenated American]

On 2013-05-20, xyzzy <xyzzy...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On May 20, 12:47?pm, "Con Reeder, unhyphenated American"

>> > You're the one who cited Media Matters, which does not do ?politicking

>> > like 501(c)4 groups, as equivalent to them.
>>
>> *splorff*
>>

>> You claim Media Matters doesn't do politicking? ?They are a full-service

>> talking points generator for the Democratic party.
>
> You're conflating actively campaigning (running attack ads, for
> example) with "educational" activities. I'll assume you're not doing
> it intentionally.
>
> There are plenty of right-wing 501(c)3 organizations that are similar
> to Media Matters: For example: The Heritage Foundation and the
> American Enterprise Institute come to mind right away. You can't
> claim with a straight face that they are any less political than MM.
> But the distinction you refuse to recognize is that they are all a
> whole different category of actor than the 501(c)4. They all have
> leanings but none of them actively campaign, endorse candidates, or
> funnel money to candidates.
>
>> > There are Dem 501(c)4s, sure.. But there are a lot less of them, and a

>> > lot less money going into them, than the GOP ones. ?So yes, the GOP

>> > shit stinks more if for no other reason that there's more of it.
>>
>> Unions *more* than counterbalance this.
>
> Unions disclose their funding.

Of course -- it comes from me.

--
An amateur practices until he gets it right. A pro
practices until he can't get it wrong. -- unknown