Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More: The Rules That Govern 501(c)(4)s | Big Money 2012 | FRONTLINE | PBS by Emma SchwartzThe Rules That Govern 501(c)(4)s
Nearly a century ago, Congress created the complicated legal framework that governs these tax-exempt nonprofits, also known as 501(c)(4)s for the part of the tax code they fall under. That rule said they were supposed to operate exclusively for the promotion of social welfare a definition that includes groups ranging from local fire departments to the Sierra Club to the National Right to Life Committee.
While these nonprofits have always been allowed to lobby for change, in 1959, regulators opened the door to political activity by interpreting exclusively to mean that groups had to be primarily engaged in social welfare and helping the community.
But regulators never defined exactly how they would measure this balance. Part of the reason, said Marcus Owens, a former head of the IRS division overseeing nonprofits, is because the IRS didnt want to limit what it could evaluate in deciding what was political activity.
However, the lack of clarity has created a unique type of organization when it comes to politics chief among those differences being what the public must be told about these nonprofits donors.
Unfortunately, 'the buck' is all-encompassing. John Q. Public makes no such distinctions. I can understand why 'fans' would want to push the 'underling' idea but do you really think that it is going to play-out that way in real life, now that the Opposition has its ammunition?"...Put it in perspective..."
No one was denied. The problem is that a critical word was changed in 1959 from EXCLUSIVELY to PRIMARILY. The solution is simple. Just go back to EXCLUSIVELY.
Wrong. Only 8 TP groups were denied.Will the right wing machine tell the truth? Of course not, they are too busy spreading their propaganda,..
When the IRS targeted liberals - Salon.com
Three groups scrutinized but allowed to operate versus hundreds of groups prevented from operating at all.
Sure thing, go with that.
What the hell happened to you? You used to use facts in your arguments.
More: The Rules That Govern 501(c)(4)s | Big Money 2012 | FRONTLINE | PBS by Emma SchwartzThe Rules That Govern 501(c)(4)s
Nearly a century ago, Congress created the complicated legal framework that governs these tax-exempt nonprofits, also known as 501(c)(4)s for the part of the tax code they fall under. That rule said they were supposed to operate exclusively for the promotion of social welfare a definition that includes groups ranging from local fire departments to the Sierra Club to the National Right to Life Committee.
While these nonprofits have always been allowed to lobby for change, in 1959, regulators opened the door to political activity by interpreting exclusively to mean that groups had to be primarily engaged in social welfare and helping the community.
But regulators never defined exactly how they would measure this balance. Part of the reason, said Marcus Owens, a former head of the IRS division overseeing nonprofits, is because the IRS didnt want to limit what it could evaluate in deciding what was political activity.
However, the lack of clarity has created a unique type of organization when it comes to politics chief among those differences being what the public must be told about these nonprofits donors.
TaxAlmanac - A free online tax research resource and community - Treasury Regulations, Subchapter A, Sec. 1.501(c)(4)-1
No one was denied. The problem is that a critical word was changed in 1959 from EXCLUSIVELY to PRIMARILY. The solution is simple. Just go back to EXCLUSIVELY.
Unfortunately, 'the buck' is all-encompassing. John Q. Public makes no such distinctions. I can understand why 'fans' would want to push the 'underling' idea but do you really think that it is going to play-out that way in real life, now that the Opposition has its ammunition?"...Put it in perspective..."
No it isn't, not to anyone who can think reasonably and with basic logic. If your postman decides to shoot your dog because the barking annoys him, it is not the President's responsibility because someone he appointed hired someone who hired someone who hired that foolish postman. Use reason instead of hysteria.
But we are not talking about a postman shooting my dog.Unfortunately, 'the buck' is all-encompassing. John Q. Public makes no such distinctions. I can understand why 'fans' would want to push the 'underling' idea but do you really think that it is going to play-out that way in real life, now that the Opposition has its ammunition?"...Put it in perspective..."
No it isn't, not to anyone who can think reasonably and with basic logic. If your postman decides to shoot your dog because the barking annoys him, it is not the President's responsibility because someone he appointed hired someone who hired someone who hired that foolish postman. Use reason instead of hysteria.
Doesn't matter who does it. It's wrong. Brown_Noser needs to stfu. I love how liberals continue to justify their behavior off of the actions taken by the previous administration! "Bush did it, so therefore we can do it too!"
No. When anyone does it, it's wrong. Period.
Wrong. Only 8 TP groups were denied.Will the right wing machine tell the truth? Of course not, they are too busy spreading their propaganda,..
When the IRS targeted liberals - Salon.com
Three groups scrutinized but allowed to operate versus hundreds of groups prevented from operating at all.
Sure thing, go with that.
What the hell happened to you? You used to use facts in your arguments.
WASHINGTON -- In the 27 months that the Internal Revenue Service put a hold on all Tea Party applications for non-profit status, it approved applications from similar liberal groups, a USA TODAY review of IRS data shows.
As applications from conservative groups sat in limbo, groups with obviously liberal names were approved in as little as nine months. With names including words like "Progress" or "Progressive," these groups applied for the same tax status and were engaged in the same kinds of activities as the conservative groups.
The controversial, 3-year-old strategy to manage the increasing number of political groups seeking tax-exempt status came under fire Tuesday. The agency's own inspector general blamed IRS leadership for "ineffective management."
Name the head of the IRS that President Obama appointed that this happened under.
Fact is both parties try and use or persuade the IRS to target individuals and groups who oppose their particualor politcal perspective.
I think the whole idea that the President is directly responsible for any actions of the IRS is ludicrous. Whoever got the bright idea to hassel the Tea Party members over this would not have gotten direct orders from the President to do so; I doubt a president would approve such a thing, no less ordering it. It would be stupid to do so because it always ends up in a fiasco like this. If something like this happens, whether it is under Obama or Bush, etc., it is an underlinging making the decision to do it.
Nobody was hassled. They were asked to prove they were a non-profit.
That's it.
The IRS "scandal" just showed us we need campaign finance reform...like NOW.
