|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Dec 7, 2013 11:09:42 GMT
Now that isn't something I've seen.
I haven't seen Democrats calling for IRS investigations of "liberal" 501(c) organizations nor have I seen Republicans calling for IRS investigations of "conservative" 501(c) organizations.
As a Libertarian I seem to be the only one calling for IRS investigations of "libertarian" 501(c) organizations!!!
While I want the criteria for 501(c)'s to be more strictly enforced across that board, which is what the new IRS rules will help accomplish, I have no problem whatsoever with having libertarian 501(c)'s being the first in line for this additional scrutiny. In fact I would prefer it. I believe when it comes to "cleaning house" you should always start with your own house first. When it comes to addressing problems we should always focus first on our problems and once we've cleaned up our own problems then we can look at the "other guy's" problems.
What I see here are a lot of wealthy individuals are using 501(c)'s to hide their identity when it comes to political activism and that's wrong. It is very nefarious and corrupts our political system. and I'm opposed to that. They should be proud of what they believe in and should not object to others knowing who the are. Certainly as a voter I have a right to know who they are as well.
So I want "libertarian" 501(c) organizations subjected to the highest level of scrutiny first because, as a Liberatian, I don't believe we should be playing nefarious political games that violate the Rights of Voters to know who we are when we attempt to change the political landscape. If that costs us politican contributions then so be it because I'd rather uphold what is right over attempting to nefariously affect the political landscape.
BTW I seriously doubt that the OFA hasn't been subjected to additional IRS scrutiny. I don't know that a claim that it hasn't been can be supported. What I do know is if either the Tea Party Patriots and/or the OFA have been subjected to serious IRS scrutiny then the IRS is failing miserably in enforcing the restrictions on 501(c) organizations as both of these are unquestionably Politican Action groups based upon what I've been able to find out about them.
|
|
|
|
Post by JP5 on Dec 7, 2013 15:52:54 GMT
Shiva: "BTW I seriously doubt that the OFA hasn't been subjected to additional IRS scrutiny. I don't know that a claim that it hasn't been can be supported. What I do know is if either the Tea Party Patriots and/or the OFA have been subjected to serious IRS scrutiny then the IRS is failing miserably in enforcing the restrictions on 501(c) organizations as both of these are unquestionably Politican Action groups based upon what I've been able to find out about them."
You "seriously" doubt that OFA hasn't been subjected to additional IRS scrutiny? That's not the way it works; one cannot simply make something up and say....it probably happened......with no indication whatsoever they ever did. What we DO know is this: Lois Lerner personally approved his PAC which was his campaign group for the last election, "Organizing For America," to change over to a 501c4 "Organizing For Action," in less than 1 month. All this while Tea Party and conservative groups were being pulled out for EXTRA scrutiny because they had conservative-sounding names. Way too many were kept out of the political process for years....and have since been finally approved. BUT the goal was clearly to keep them OUT of the political system. We also KNOW that the people working at OFA are the same people who helped to get Obama elected a second time. So....it's best to go with what we actually KNOW, and not just try hard to give them the benefit of the doubt by making stuff up.
And BTW, most of these groups.....especially the ones that have been around a long time....have BOTH a 501c3 AND a 501c4. Many also have the 527 as well. There are rules about keeping the donations and accounting separate.....but they are the same people involved in ALL.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Dec 9, 2013 11:38:51 GMT
And BTW, most of these groups.....especially the ones that have been around a long time....have BOTH a 501c3 AND a 501c4. Many also have the 527 as well. There are rules about keeping the donations and accounting separate.....but they are the same people involved in ALL.
This is where I have a serious problem.
It is nefarious as it masks the large donors from public scrutiny. As I've noted I don't mind a multi-millionaire spending their money on political activism but I believe we have a right to know who they are. It's BS that they can be anonymous donors hiding behind 501(c) tax exempt organization status.
What amazes me is that anyone can support the anonymous political activism by these multi-millionaires. Am I the only one that objects to it?
|
|
|
|
Post by JP5 on Dec 10, 2013 22:28:09 GMT
I can understand why they wouldn't want to be hounded about their right to contribute to something that is legal. Would YOU support YOUR name appearing in newspapers? We already know that socialist and multi-billionaire George Soros has his money in just about every Democrat endeavor. And we know that billionaires the Koch brothers contribute a lot to conservative groups. How does it really help you to know? Bottom line: it is LEGAL for anyone to contribute as much as they want to a 501c4. BOTH liberals and conservatives have their fat cats. And I can safely assume that the liberals ones support more Socialist policies and government control....and the conservative ones support stopping the over-spending and stopping getting more and more people on government subsidies. I know which one I support and why. That's really all I need to know.
|
|
|
|
Post by iolo on Dec 11, 2013 13:51:25 GMT
I can understand why they wouldn't want to be hounded about their right to contribute to something that is legal. Would YOU support YOUR name appearing in newspapers? We already know that socialist and multi-billionaire George Soros has his money in just about every Democrat endeavor. And we know that billionaires the Koch brothers contribute a lot to conservative groups. How does it really help you to know? Bottom line: it is LEGAL for anyone to contribute as much as they want to a 501c4. BOTH liberals and conservatives have their fat cats. And I can safely assume that the liberals ones support more Socialist policies and government control....and the conservative ones support stopping the over-spending and stopping getting more and more people on government subsidies. I know which one I support and why. That's really all I need to know.
As you doubtless know, about 95% of the really rich support the Right, because it serves their interests and no-one else's. Why do you suppose socialism was eliminated in the US? If you live in a plutocracy you must tug your forelocks and shut your mouths, obviously. |
|
|
|
Post by JP5 on Dec 13, 2013 4:57:44 GMT
I can understand why they wouldn't want to be hounded about their right to contribute to something that is legal. Would YOU support YOUR name appearing in newspapers? We already know that socialist and multi-billionaire George Soros has his money in just about every Democrat endeavor. And we know that billionaires the Koch brothers contribute a lot to conservative groups. How does it really help you to know? Bottom line: it is LEGAL for anyone to contribute as much as they want to a 501c4. BOTH liberals and conservatives have their fat cats. And I can safely assume that the liberals ones support more Socialist policies and government control....and the conservative ones support stopping the over-spending and stopping getting more and more people on government subsidies. I know which one I support and why. That's really all I need to know.
As you doubtless know, about 95% of the really rich support the Right, because it serves their interests and no-one else's. Why do you suppose socialism was eliminated in the US? If you live in a plutocracy you must tug your forelocks and shut your mouths, obviously. George Soros isn't from the Right. Oprah Winfrey and about 99.99% of Hollywood actors, producers, directors, etc. aren't from the Right. The kid who founded Facebook........and Bill Gates aren't from the Right. There are many wealthy business owners, lawyers, insurance companies, etc. that aren't from the Right. AND they are ALL super rich. So, your statement has no basis in fact. IN FACT, the richest people in the Congress and Senate are Democrats. And our country was founded based on Capitalism......because it's the system that works best and is fairest to all; creates incentive to achieve and excel. |
|
|
|
Post by iolo on Dec 13, 2013 12:43:26 GMT
As you doubtless know, about 95% of the really rich support the Right, because it serves their interests and no-one else's. Why do you suppose socialism was eliminated in the US? If you live in a plutocracy you must tug your forelocks and shut your mouths, obviously. George Soros isn't from the Right. Oprah Winfrey and about 99.99% of Hollywood actors, producers, directors, etc. aren't from the Right. The kid who founded Facebook........and Bill Gates aren't from the Right. There are many wealthy business owners, lawyers, insurance companies, etc. that aren't from the Right. AND they are ALL super rich. So, your statement has no basis in fact. IN FACT, the richest people in the Congress and Senate are Democrats. And our country was founded based on Capitalism......because it's the system that works best and is fairest to all; creates incentive to achieve and excel. I'm talking about your masters, not those they pay to entertain you. Capitalism - as you know - is a system where the very rich live off the mugs they steal from, using part of the swag to brainwash those persons. Usually they manage to throw a few crumbs to the mugs where they live, but not when they get as greedy as they presently are - and, as you know, real wages have hardly increased over 40 years in the US. 'Left' and Right' are largely meaningless terms used to conceal class interest, and in the US seem currently to concern attitudes to homosexuality and the like - there was doubtless a 'left' in the tents of Genghiz Khan. Capitalism is a system that cannot ever produced ENOUGH, as you know, only too much or too little, and will soon bugger the human race forever by burning it to death. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Dec 13, 2013 16:20:27 GMT
I can understand why they wouldn't want to be hounded about their right to contribute to something that is legal. Would YOU support YOUR name appearing in newspapers? We already know that socialist and multi-billionaire George Soros has his money in just about every Democrat endeavor. And we know that billionaires the Koch brothers contribute a lot to conservative groups. How does it really help you to know? Bottom line: it is LEGAL for anyone to contribute as much as they want to a 501c4. BOTH liberals and conservatives have their fat cats. And I can safely assume that the liberals ones support more Socialist policies and government control....and the conservative ones support stopping the over-spending and stopping getting more and more people on government subsidies. I know which one I support and why. That's really all I need to know.
Why should I or anyone else object if they are supporting a political ideology or charity?
Once again I'll point out the a fundamental problem exists with the law that allows people to hide their identity for nefarious reasons. It serves no public interest to hide the names of donors nor does it benefit the person to have their identity withheld if they truly believe in what they support. If they believe in what they support then they should not object to public disclosure. Only those that want to hide their support for nefarious reasons seek the annominity of their support for politics or charities. "Politics and Charities" would be better off without their support. If you believe in something then stand up and be counted!!!
The only point I will concede is that there shouldn't be "targeting" in the application of the law. Of course I also find it somewhat ironic that "conservatives" that object to the possible "targeting" of conservative political organizations involved in political activism don't generally object to the targeting of "blacks" when it comes to law enforcement, voting rights, and employment discrimination. Why aren't they screaming bloody murder about the disporportionate arresting, conviction and sentencing of blacks related to drug crimes? Why aren't they objecting to the new Jim Crow voting laws that disproportionaly disenfranchise African-American voters when the laws aren't even addressing an identified problem with voter identification fraud at the polls as no such problem exists statistically? Why aren't they raising the roof in complaining about employement discrimination based upon race and gender in America?
If we want to address "targeting" then let's address all of the issues of "targeting" and not just when it's against "our side" in America.
|
|
That's not the way it works; one cannot simply make something up and say....it probably happened......with no indication whatsoever they ever did. What we DO know is this: Lois Lerner personally approved his PAC which was his campaign group for the last election, "Organizing For America," to change over to a 501c4 "Organizing For Action," in less than 1 month. All this while Tea Party and conservative groups were being pulled out for EXTRA scrutiny because they had conservative-sounding names. Way too many were kept out of the political process for years....and have since been finally approved. BUT the goal was clearly to keep them OUT of the political system. We also KNOW that the people working at OFA are the same people who helped to get Obama elected a second time. So....it's best to go with what we actually KNOW, and not just try hard to give them the benefit of the doubt by making stuff up. 
