Media Matters' Enemies List

[Dr Grump]

Congress wrote McCain-Feingold. That kind of makes it a law.

I know what McCain-Feingold is. Care to explain how MM has broken the law?

Care to explain how they have not? Given the disclosures.

What disclosures? some bleating on a conservative website with an axe to grind? My burden of proof is a lot higher than that. You are the one insinuating they have broken the law, so it is yours to prove...

 

[Trajan]

I know what McCain-Feingold is. Care to explain how MM has broken the law?

Care to explain how they have not? Given the disclosures.

What disclosures? some bleating on a conservative website with an axe to grind? My burden of proof is a lot higher than that. You are the one insinuating they have broken the law, so it is yours to prove...

the politico thread quotes brock directly....

 

[percysunshine]

I know what McCain-Feingold is. Care to explain how MM has broken the law?

Care to explain how they have not? Given the disclosures.

What disclosures? some bleating on a conservative website with an axe to grind? My burden of proof is a lot higher than that. You are the one insinuating they have broken the law, so it is yours to prove...

Actually, it is Eric Holders to prove. You are kind of slow on the uptake here.

 

[Dr Grump]

Care to explain how they have not? Given the disclosures.

What disclosures? some bleating on a conservative website with an axe to grind? My burden of proof is a lot higher than that. You are the one insinuating they have broken the law, so it is yours to prove...

the politico thread quotes brock directly....

Do you have a link to the thread...Cheers

 

[Trajan]

Yep....they are both doing the same thing IMO...You might be able to pick out nuances here and there, but they are cut from the same cloth IMO..

being cut from the same clothe does not mean their actions are applied equally, or are as disparate, they are not(?). last time I checked and as far as I know the nra has not come done on anyone on say, XL keystone issue?

Not too sure what you mean..

media matters and the nra are not the same, aside from the simple use of intimidation via information, but, their missions as to what initiates pursuit, are entirely different.

media matters takes stances on, well, many many issues, I am a member of the nra and cannot recall ever getting a letter, request for action, money etc. for anything not related to the 2 nd amend. ala gun control....

example- I posted a letter/e mail sent by MM to a list of dem. congressman a few pages back.

 

[Trajan]

What disclosures? some bleating on a conservative website with an axe to grind? My burden of proof is a lot higher than that. You are the one insinuating they have broken the law, so it is yours to prove...

the politico thread quotes brock directly....

Do you have a link to the thread...Cheers

its a few pages back in this thread politico ben smith.

 

[Dr Grump]

Care to explain how they have not? Given the disclosures.

What disclosures? some bleating on a conservative website with an axe to grind? My burden of proof is a lot higher than that. You are the one insinuating they have broken the law, so it is yours to prove...

Actually, it is Eric Holders to prove. You are kind of slow on the uptake here.

He only has to prove something if there is a case to make. There isn't one. Talk about slow on the uptake...

 

[Dr Grump]

being cut from the same clothe does not mean their actions are applied equally, or are as disparate, they are not(?). last time I checked and as far as I know the nra has not come done on anyone on say, XL keystone issue?

Not too sure what you mean..

media matters and the nra are not the same, aside from the simple use of intimidation via information, but, their missions as to what initiates pursuit, are entirely different.

media matters takes stances on, well, many many issues, I am a member of the nra and cannot recall ever getting a letter, request for action, money etc. for anything not related to the 2 nd amend. ala gun control....

example- I posted a letter/e mail sent by MM to a list of dem. congressman a few pages back.

Are you talking about the letter from the Emilee chick who Dr Is In has already pointed out does not affect their tax-exempt status?

 

[Dr Grump]

the politico thread quotes brock directly....

Do you have a link to the thread...Cheers

its a few pages back in this thread politico ben smith.

Oh, I read that. Again, nothing in there to affect their status. He is not overtly supporting any politico. He's going after Fox....again, nothing says he can't...

 

[Trajan]

Do you have a link to the thread...Cheers

its a few pages back in this thread politico ben smith.

Oh, I read that. Again, nothing in there to affect their status. He is not overtly supporting any politico. He's going after Fox....again, nothing says he can't...

so sppting dems exclusively is ...? what exactly? they denied tax exempt status to an org that was going to 'school' folks as to how to conduct research as avowed republicans against dems..........I am really trying to see a difference here.


so ok, I think I see what the layout is, its legal so, its ok, and yes it is.alright is there a right wing org who wields similar influence and practices the same exclusivity at the same time?

the nra goes no where near fitting that bill.

MM feeds and coordinated with reporters information they write up sans attribution, conf.'s with the WH, etc...

again I don't care who's 'side' they of them are on, its BS, the tax exempt status is ridiculous, they are for all intents and purposes a political org. who practices an uber partisanship that should not be awarded that status...and if there is one on the right, they need to lose their status too.....is there?

 

[Trajan]

Not too sure what you mean..

media matters and the nra are not the same, aside from the simple use of intimidation via information, but, their missions as to what initiates pursuit, are entirely different.

media matters takes stances on, well, many many issues, I am a member of the nra and cannot recall ever getting a letter, request for action, money etc. for anything not related to the 2 nd amend. ala gun control....

example- I posted a letter/e mail sent by MM to a list of dem. congressman a few pages back.

Are you talking about the letter from the Emilee chick who Dr Is In has already pointed out does not affect their tax-exempt status?

it was a response to the side debate on the nra being like MM's......

 

[Dr Grump]

its a few pages back in this thread politico ben smith.

Oh, I read that. Again, nothing in there to affect their status. He is not overtly supporting any politico. He's going after Fox....again, nothing says he can't...

so sppting dems exclusively is ...? what exactly? they denied tax exempt status to an org that was going to 'school' folks as to how to conduct research as avowed republicans against dems..........I am really trying to see a difference here.


so ok, I think I see what the layout is, its legal so, its ok, and yes it is.alright is there a right wing org who wields similar influence and practices the same exclusivity at the same time?

the nra goes no where near fitting that bill.

MM feeds and coordinated with reporters information they write up sans attribution, conf.'s with the WH, etc...

again I don't care who's 'side' they of them are on, its BS, the tax exempt status is ridiculous, they are for all intents and purposes a political org. who practices an uber partisanship that should not be awarded that status...and if there is one on the right, they need to lose their status too.....is there?

I don't think any kind of group that does lobbying - and that includes the NRA - should be tax exempt...

 

[theDoctorisIn]

*shrugs* I won't argue that right now....and be careful, Jillian has a soft spot for Rdean.

anyway, the aca- American Campaign Academy v. Commissioner;


have a gander...




In three recently released determination letters, the IRS denied federal income tax-exemption under section 501(c)(4) to organizations that conducted training programs for members of a particular political party. PLR 201128032 (released July 15, 2011, and dated April 4, 2011), PLR 201128034 (released July 15, 2011, and dated April 18, 2011), PLR 201128035 (released July 15, 2011, and dated April 18, 2011).

For electronic versions of the nine-page exemption rulings:
PLR 201128032, PLR 201128034, and PLR 201128035
Summary

Each ruling involves an organization that conducted a training program for members of a named political party. Each organization applied for recognition of tax-exempt status as a social welfare organization under section 501(c)(4).

The IRS concluded that the organizations’ training programs primarily benefited the interests of a particular political party and its candidates. Any educational activities undertaken provided a partisan benefit considered to serve private interests rather than the community as a whole. Therefore, the organizations did not operate exclusively for the promotion of social welfare within the meaning of section 501(c)(4) and did not qualify for exemption.

KPMG Observation

In reaching its conclusions, the IRS cited the Tax Court’s decision in American Campaign Academy v. Commissioner—a 1989 case that involved facts similar to those found in the determinations. Although the Tax Court case addressed tax exemption under section 501(c)(3), the IRS stated that the standard for determining what constitutes private benefit applies to both sections 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4). The fact that the respective organizations were involved in politics had no bearing on the case or the determination letters.

TaxNewsFlash-Exempt Organizations

MediaMatters is a 501c3, not a 501c4. But it's close enough.

That ruling, as cited in your post, had nothing to do with the politics of the organizations. ACA was an organizations that specifically trained people to work for one party, not for the "public" good - which is where the violation occurred.

The fact that the respective organizations were involved in politics had no bearing on the case or the determination letters.

I am not arguing the politics per se either, so you don't see the MM mission as laid out by Brock as the same?

No, it's not the same because of the target audience.

MediaMatters, no matter how partisan they are, are targeting the public at large with their "services", whereas ACA was training operatives specifically for one political party.

The ruling about ACA didn't have to do with them being overtly political - it had to do with the recipients of their "work".

 

[chanel]

A little after 1 p.m. on Sept. 29, 2009, Karl Frisch emailed a memo to his bosses, Media Matters for America founder David Brock and president Eric Burns. In the first few lines, Frisch explained why Media Matters should launch a “Fox Fund” whose mission would be to attack the Fox News Channel.

“Simply put,” Frisch wrote, “the progressive movement is in need of an enemy. George W. Bush is gone. We really don’t have John McCain to kick around any more. Filling the lack of leadership on the right, Fox News has emerged as the central enemy and antagonist of the Obama administration, our Congressional majorities and the progressive movement as a whole.”

“We should hire private investigators to look into the personal lives of Fox News anchors, hosts, reporters, prominent contributors, senior network and corporate staff,” he wrote.

“We should look into contracting with a major law firm to study any available legal actions that can be taken against Fox News...

Frisch went on to call for “an elaborate shareholder campaign” against News Corporation, the parent company of Fox News...

“We should also hire a team of trackers to stake out private and public events with Fox News anchors, hosts, reporters, prominent contributors and senior network/corporate staff.”

The memo goes on to suggest new and unusual ways to harass Fox News: “detailed opposition research” on the network’s staff and executives, attacks against Fox News employees on Facebook and other social media, mailing anti-Fox News literature to their homes and placing “yard signs and outdoor advertising in their neighborhoods.”

At one point, Frisch suggests putting “a mole inside of” the network.

Read more: Media Matters Memo | Private Investigators | Fox News Employees | The Daily Caller

Still think they are worthy of tax exempt status?

Wait til the connections are made with the WH. This could be huge.

 

[Dr Grump]

A little after 1 p.m. on Sept. 29, 2009, Karl Frisch emailed a memo to his bosses, Media Matters for America founder David Brock and president Eric Burns. In the first few lines, Frisch explained why Media Matters should launch a “Fox Fund” whose mission would be to attack the Fox News Channel.

“Simply put,” Frisch wrote, “the progressive movement is in need of an enemy. George W. Bush is gone. We really don’t have John McCain to kick around any more. Filling the lack of leadership on the right, Fox News has emerged as the central enemy and antagonist of the Obama administration, our Congressional majorities and the progressive movement as a whole.”

“We should hire private investigators to look into the personal lives of Fox News anchors, hosts, reporters, prominent contributors, senior network and corporate staff,” he wrote.

“We should look into contracting with a major law firm to study any available legal actions that can be taken against Fox News...

Frisch went on to call for “an elaborate shareholder campaign” against News Corporation, the parent company of Fox News...

“We should also hire a team of trackers to stake out private and public events with Fox News anchors, hosts, reporters, prominent contributors and senior network/corporate staff.”

The memo goes on to suggest new and unusual ways to harass Fox News: “detailed opposition research” on the network’s staff and executives, attacks against Fox News employees on Facebook and other social media, mailing anti-Fox News literature to their homes and placing “yard signs and outdoor advertising in their neighborhoods.”

At one point, Frisch suggests putting “a mole inside of” the network.

Read more: Media Matters Memo | Private Investigators | Fox News Employees | The Daily Caller

Still think they are worthy of tax exempt status?

Wait til the connections are made with the WH. This could be huge.

Thanks for highlighting the bolded parts.

Finally a conservative admitting that Fox News is nothing more than a republican mouth piece...

 

[editec]

“We will conduct extensive public records searches and compile opposition books on individuals,” declares the memo, likely written in late 2009. Investigations, it says, “will focus on the backgrounds, connections, operations and political and financial activities of the individuals.” (RELATED: Media Matters sources, memos reveal erratic behavior, close coordination with White House and news organizations)

Yeah, it's called OPPOSITION RESEARCH, kids.

It is standard operating procedure in the world of politics to know as much about the other team. these researchers vet the past history of their targets looking for warts, and they monitor what their targets are currently doing, now, too

What?

You think there aren't teams of people doing that for your chosen candidates too?

Please, do grow up, kids.

You are making yourselves look like fools.

I'm tired of feeling embarrassed for far too many of you.

 

[Uncensored2008]

They certainly do have a hit list..

Nope.

They have persons who are hostile to the US Constitution and the 2ND amendment, but I've never seen evidence of a hit list. If you have some, present it.

and they certainly manipulate the media...

Really?

Let's see evidence?

 

[Uncensored2008]

ahhh u make a funnnnny!!
I am a moderate now? quotes not withstanding?

and ole deanie...

Do "moderates" quote Von Mises?

Standard Disclaimer: Most of those claiming to be moderate here, quote Chomsky and Mao....

 

[jillian]

“We will conduct extensive public records searches and compile opposition books on individuals,” declares the memo, likely written in late 2009. Investigations, it says, “will focus on the backgrounds, connections, operations and political and financial activities of the individuals.” (RELATED: Media Matters sources, memos reveal erratic behavior, close coordination with White House and news organizations)

Yeah, it's called OPPOSITION RESEARCH, kids.

It is standard operating procedure in the world of politics to know as much about the other team. these researchers vet the past history of their targets looking for warts, and they monitor what their targets are currently doing, now, too

What?

You think there aren't teams of people doing that for your chosen candidates too?

Please, do grow up, kids.

You are making yourselves look like fools.

I'm tired of feeling embarrassed for far too many of you.

^^^^^^

this

 

[Uncensored2008]

Yep....they are both doing the same thing IMO...

I take it that "in your opinion," Al Qaeda and the women's rotary "do the same thing" as well?

You might be able to pick out nuances here and there, but they are cut from the same cloth IMO..

Just like Al Qaeda and the women's rotary.....