Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Newspaper contacts | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Double standard

May 26, 2013

If, during the administration of George Bush, it was discovered that the IRS was targeting liberal non-profit organizations for additional scrutiny, and Congress decided to convene an investigation,......

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(57)

USABorn

Jun-02-13 9:44 AM

CHayes - 2:34 AM

"That's funny because a story dropped yesterday about some of these groups. One of them listed their largest single expense in 2012, as several thousand dollars spent for radio ads for a US Congressional candidate. That would actually exclude them from 501(c)(4) status."

WRONG. It isn't how much the group spends on a campaign, but what they spend the MAJORITY OF THEIR TIME DOING. ------------------------------------- May IRC 501(c)(4), (c)(5), or (c)(6) Organizations Engage in Political Campaign Activities?

IRC 501(c)(4), (c)(5), and (c)(6) organizations may engage in political campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to candidates for public office provided that such intervention does not constitute the organization's PRIMARY activity.

*******www irs gov/pub/irs-tege/eotopicl03 pdf (dots go in the 3 spaces

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

May-28-13 9:54 AM

"When Abu Ghraib broke, liberals wanted to follow the scandal all the way to the top.

Liberals were convinced the orders came down from Bush and Cheney."

And wouldn't that have been worth investigating considering the US War Crimes Act, that was passed by the Republican Congress and signed into law by President Clinton, less than a decade before, made it a crime for a US govt official to order torture. It actually made it a death penalty offense if the torture resulted in death. And there WERE people tortured to death by Americans not just in Abu Ghraib, but other US facilities as well.

0 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

May-28-13 2:34 AM

... Are you claiming that none of the other 60,000+ groups that DIDN'T receive extra scrutiny were conservative political groups? That the 96 conservative groups that received this extra scrutiny (out of 298 total groups) were the ONLY conservative groups that applied for tax free status in 2012?

That's funny because a story dropped yesterday about some of these groups. One of them listed their largest single expense in 2012, as several thousand dollars spent for radio ads for a US Congressional candidate. That would actually exclude them from 501(c)(4) status.

0 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

May-28-13 2:23 AM

"With Benghazi, the IRS and warrants against reporters, it is ridiculous to think any of that came from the top."

So then you're claiming that the President ordered terrorists to attack our diplomatic mission in Benghazi, and ordered the IRS to apply "extra scrutiny" to conservative groups applying for tax free status?

The problem with the first part is obvious. Unless you consider the US Armed Services to be terrorists, the President doesn't command terrorists, he kills them.

The problem with the second part is, if the President ordered the IRS to apply extra scrutiny to conservative groups, why was it that only 32% of the minuscule .5% of groups that the IRS applied this "extra scrutiny" to, were conservative groups?

...

0 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

eriklatranyi

May-27-13 3:59 PM

When Abu Ghraib broke, liberals wanted to follow the scandal all the way to the top.

Liberals were convinced the orders came down from Bush and Cheney.

With Benghazi, the IRS and warrants against reporters, it is ridiculous to think any of that came from the top.

5 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

May-27-13 6:20 AM

To be more specific Carl, the 501(c)(4) technically existed before Citizens United, but the right wing of the court basically changed who had to be given access to it. It's outrageous.

1 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CarlHiller

May-27-13 5:31 AM

They aren't exempt under any law. They are exempt under the Citizens United Court ruling. I thought you folks were against "judicial activism"? Law, regulation, court ruling there really is no difference. What cannot, or is not, done by law is always done after the fact through regulations and/or court rulings. If you do not follow the law you can be fined or placed in jail, if you do not follow regulations you can be fined or placed in jail, If you do not follow court rulings you can be fined or placed in jail. What's the difference? As to Citizens United I have been against that since the ruling. A corporation can never be a person. That is totally against what the Founders designed. Corporations were originally chartered for a very limited time and for a specific purpose, they absolutely had no rights like an individual has. Any Repub who supports this and yet spouts the Constitution is a hypocrite.

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

May-26-13 3:52 PM

" You defend the indefensible and blame me for having a persecution complex. Grow up!"

What a funny thing for someone to say that's throwing a fit because they had their scandal binky taken from them.

1 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

May-26-13 3:51 PM

" One more time: They admitted wrongdoing and apologized"

Oh yes, and I'm certain that that is the first ever example of a bureaucrat apologizing when they did nothing wrong.

" Your numbers (even if true) are irrelevant."

Ah yes, those pesky facts. The fact that NOBODY was persecuted (disproportionately or any other way). The fact that no laws were broken. The fact that not a single group (business) out of the 298 was denied their free ride. The fact that over 60,000 applications were processed through this office last year, and under 300 were pulled for "extra scrutiny".

1 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Ritty77

May-26-13 2:12 PM

One more time: They admitted wrongdoing and apologized and are now taking the fifth as if they are guilty of something. Your numbers (even if true) are irrelevant.

You defend the indefensible and blame me for having a persecution complex. Grow up!

6 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

May-26-13 11:12 AM

" the very laws currently being applied in a politically partisan way"

Please explain how the guidelines are being applied in a partisan way? Apparently the math I asked you to do earlier was too much for you. 298 groups (out of over 60,000 applications) were pulled for "extra scrutiny". 96 of the groups were conservative. Where I come from, that's about 32%.

0 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

May-26-13 11:01 AM

Again Ritty, there are NOT laws on the books regarding 501(c)(4) groups. There are only IRS rules that were a direct result of Citizens United. Perhaps you should holster your persecution complex ling enough to actually investigate where the new 501(c)(4) designation came from.

0 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Ritty77

May-26-13 10:47 AM

Income should be taxed. There are laws on the books which determine who's eligible (the very laws currently being applied in a politically partisan way). Non-profit is non-profit, whether it's "get out the vote" organizations or the Red Cross or PETA.

5 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

May-26-13 10:35 AM

" I answered, Chris. I said you shouldn't tax free speech ."

So newspapers shouldn't pay tax? How about movie companies? Musicians? Performance artists? Companies that make microphones?

Their speech isn't what's being taxed, its their income.

0 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

VinceKnauff

May-26-13 10:33 AM

What else can make privileged, middle-class, white folks like you feel so victimized. That's right. I'm tired of hearing people like you saying they're victimized and mistreated when you're not.

Hey Shulski - I am going to save this quote and keep it handy for use in any and all letters submitted by Liberals here. Seems like the best way to answer most every complaint made by a Liberal.

5 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

May-26-13 10:32 AM

" The "idea" behind giving these groups tax-exempt status is that they educate the public about political issues and, at some point, Congress decided to extend tax-exempt status to groups that educate the public."

That's not the case at all erik. Congress didn't extend anything to these groups. They are filing for 501(c)(4) status, which is a completely new status that is a direct result of the Citizens United decision.

Second, they aren't "educational" groups, they're political lobbying groups. They raise money by saying "Oh my! Look at these terrible things happening. Send us money and we will effect change." They contact legislators, organize campaigns for or against this or that. They organize demonstrations.

Sixty THOUSAND of these groups (businesses) filed for tax exempt status last year alone. If you want to start a business and live the American dream, more power to you. Even if its a political business. Just pay your tax like ever

0 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

VinceKnauff

May-26-13 10:24 AM

The right is trying to make a mountian out of a mole hill. There is no proof that the Obama WH instigated the investigation.

Just following your template, Chuck. Did Nixon order the break-in at the Watergate complex? No?

5 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Shulski

May-26-13 10:22 AM

Cry me a river Carlucci. Bush got away with war crimes and deceit on a scale few criminals can brag about. And this incessant crying that the "Chicago Tribune" and other "liberal media outlets" needs to stop. You people don't even know where the CENTER in politics is anymore. Because all of your political beliefs come from Fox News and nationalistic Right Wing propaganda that's taken over your minds. What else can make privileged, middle-class, white folks like you feel so victimized. That's right. I'm tired of hearing people like you saying they're victimized and mistreated when you're not.

3 Agrees | 9 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JerryfromRI

May-26-13 10:03 AM

Good letter, expressed fair and justified concerns.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

eriklatranyi

May-26-13 9:58 AM

CHayes keeps asking:

"Why should a political business not have to pay taxes like every other business in America?"

First, this has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

Debating the tax code is a legislative matter.

The "idea" behind giving these groups tax-exempt status is that they educate the public about political issues and, at some point, Congress decided to extend tax-exempt status to groups that educate the public.

This happened long before "Citizens United", so you can stop trying to use that LIE for this issue.

I think the tax code is too complex, convoluted and prone to all sorts of favoritism.

I, and others, would prefer a simple, flat tax system where all income is treated the same and no deductions are allowed.

The issue TODAY is about using the tax code to harass and delay certain political groups while not doing the same to other political groups.

It would have been no different if Bill Clinton would have used the IRS to harass p

4 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Ritty77

May-26-13 9:48 AM

I answered, Chris. I said you shouldn't tax free speech . Citizens, be it individuals, grassroots groups, unions, or corporations should be allowed to pool their resources (with proper disclosure) to lobby its government.

Let the voters decide whose money is dirty.

5 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Ritty77

May-26-13 9:43 AM

"Which number is bigger?"

Dude, they have already admitted that they improperly targeted Conservative groups. They know the numbers better than you or me.

If you're saying that they should not have admitted this impropriety and apologized for it (?), I guess it could be argued statistically (with the proper numbers).

But numbers don't tell the whole story. Some of the questions they asked should never be asked in a free country. It's an abuse of power.

You should let the IRS take its lumps lest this reach higher up. Obama has already lied about when he found about the IRS' wrongdoing.

7 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CMReeder

May-26-13 9:25 AM

LOL

The right is trying to make a mountian out of a mole hill. There is no proof that the Obama WH instigated the investigation.

What will happen is nothing. Congress will not do anything about the tax code. Republican members of congress knew about the IG conducting an investigation into the IRS 'targeting' conservative Tea Party organizations. They did nothing until it became common knowledge.

2 Agrees | 9 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

May-26-13 9:19 AM

I really wish someone, anyone, could explain to me why political businesses should not have to pay taxes like EVERY OTHER small business in America. I've been asking this for days, and apparently nobody can answer.

0 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

May-26-13 9:15 AM

" Laws and regulations, whether you like them or not, need to be enforced uniformly to all."

So let's say for the sake of argument ritty, that there are 3 types of groups that might seek tax exempt status under the bizarre guidelines established by Citizens United. Liberal political groups, conservative political groups, and actual "social welfare" organizations. Divide 100% by 3.Now lets divide 98 (the number of conservative groups that were "singled out for extra scrutiny"), by 298 (the total number of groups "singled out for extra scrutiny").

Which number is bigger?

0 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 57 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web