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.
The 'smoking gun' in the targeting of conservative groups has been hiding in plain sight.
• Jan. 27, 2010: President Obama criticizes Citizens United in his State of the Union address and asks Congress to "correct" the decision.
• Feb. 11, 2010: Sen. Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) says he will introduce legislation known as the Disclose Act to place new restrictions on some political activity by corporations and force more public disclosure of contributions to 501(c)(4) organizations. Mr. Schumer says the bill is intended to "embarrass companies" out of exercising the rights recognized in Citizens United. "The deterrent effect should not be underestimated," he said.
• Soon after, in March 2010, Mr. Obama publicly criticizes conservative 501(c)(4) organizations engaging in politics. In his Aug. 21 radio address, he warns Americans about "shadowy groups with harmless sounding names" and a "corporate takeover of our democracy."
• Sept. 28, 2010: Mr. Obama publicly accuses conservative 501(c)(4) organizations of "posing as not-for-profit, social welfare and trade groups." Max Baucus, then chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, asks the IRS to investigate 501(c)(4)s, specifically citing Americans for Job Security, an advocacy group that says its role is to "put forth a pro-growth, pro-jobs message to the American people."
• Oct. 11, 2010: Sen. Dick Durbin (D., Ill.) asks the IRS to investigate the conservative 501(c)(4) Crossroads GPS and "other organizations."
• April 2011: White House officials confirm that Mr. Obama is considering an executive order that would require all government contractors to disclose their donations to politically active organizations as part of their bids for government work. The proposal is later dropped amid opposition across the political spectrum.
• Feb. 16, 2012: Seven Democratic senators— Michael Bennet (Colo.), Al Franken (Minn.), Jeff Merkley (Ore.), Mr. Schumer, Jeanne Shaheen (N.H.), Tom Udall (N.M.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.)—write to the IRS asking for an investigation of conservative 501(c)(4) organizations.
• March 12, 2012: The same seven Democrats write another letter asking for further investigation of conservative 501(c)(4)s, claiming abuse of their tax status.
• July 27, 2012: Sen. Carl Levin (D., Mich.) writes one of several letters to then-IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman seeking a probe of nine conservative groups, plus two liberal and one centrist organization. In 2013 testimony to the HouseOversight and Government Reform Committee, former IRS Acting Commissioner Steven Miller describes Sen. Levin as complaining "bitterly" to the IRS and demanding investigations.
• Aug. 31, 2012: In another letter to the IRS, Sen. Levin calls its failure to investigate and prosecute targeted organizations "unacceptable."
• Dec. 14, 2012: The liberal media outlet ProPublica receives Crossroads GPS's 2010 application for tax-exempt status from the IRS. Because the group's tax-exempt status had not been recognized, the application was confidential. ProPublica publishes the full application. It later reports that it received nine confidential pending applications from IRS agents, six of which it published. None of the applications was from a left-leaning organization.
• April 9, 2013: Sen. Whitehouse convenes the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism to examine nonprofits. He alleges that nonprofits are violating federal law by making false statements about their political activities and donors and using shell companies to donate to super PACs to hide donors' identities. He berates Patricia Haynes, then-deputy chief of Criminal Investigation at the IRS, for not prosecuting conservative nonprofits.
• May 10, 2013: Sen. Levin announces that the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations will hold hearings on "the IRS's failure to enforce the law requiring that tax-exempt 501(c)(4)s be engaged exclusively in social welfare activities, not partisan politics." Three days later he postpones the hearings when Lois Lerner (then-director of the IRS Exempt Organizations Division) reveals that the IRS had been targeting and delaying the applications of conservative groups applying for tax-exempt status.
• Nov. 29, 2013: The IRS proposes new rules redefining "political activity" to include activities such as voter-registration drives and the production of nonpartisan legislative scorecards to restrict what the agency deems as excessive spending on campaigns by tax-exempt 501(c)(4) groups. Even many liberal nonprofits argue that the rule goes too far in limiting their political activity—but the main target appears to be the conservative 501(c)(4)s that have so irritated Democrats.
• Feb. 13, 2014: The Hill newspaper reports that "Senate Democrats facing tough elections this year want the Internal Revenue Service to play a more aggressive role in regulating outside groups expected to spend millions of dollars on their races."
It's all there, but don't expect the liberals to take facts seriously.
The circumstantial evidence here is better than it is in most cases that end in conviction, but the slime will get away with it because the media hasn't reported on it in a manner that makes people stand up and take notice. They passively mention things, as if it's nothing.
Nixon only did a small fraction of this, but because the media was all up in arms and making it headline news, people eventually became outraged. The media has a dramatic effect on how people perceive things. The sentiment now from most of the media is telling people to go about their business and not worry.
Watchdog Objects to New IRS Proposal Targeting Nonprofit
Watchdog group Judicial Watch sent a letter on Wednesday to the Internal Revenue Service calling for the withdrawal of a new proposal regarding nonprofit groups, calling the proposal a “plainly unconstitutional regulation that arbitrarily reverses 53 years of administrative and judicial precedent.”
Any idea what the difference between a 501 c3 and a 527 c3 is?
Any idea what the difference between a 501 c3 and a 527 c3 is?
Any idea what the difference between a 501 c3 and a 527 c3 is?
According to the Internal Revenue Service Code, 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) organizations are nonprofit organizations that are exempt from paying federal income tax. 501(c)(3) organizations are either a public charity, private foundation or private operating foundation with open membership whereas 501(c)(4) organizations are civic leagues or associations operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare or local associations of employees with limited membership.
Any idea what the difference between a 501 c3 and a 527 c3 is?
According to the Internal Revenue Service Code, 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) organizations are nonprofit organizations that are exempt from paying federal income tax. 501(c)(3) organizations are either a public charity, private foundation or private operating foundation with open membership whereas 501(c)(4) organizations are civic leagues or associations operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare or local associations of employees with limited membership.
So why is it that a TEA Party organization would apply for 501 c3 status rather than 527 c3 status?
According to the Internal Revenue Service Code, 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) organizations are nonprofit organizations that are exempt from paying federal income tax. 501(c)(3) organizations are either a public charity, private foundation or private operating foundation with open membership whereas 501(c)(4) organizations are civic leagues or associations operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare or local associations of employees with limited membership.
So why is it that a TEA Party organization would apply for 501 c3 status rather than 527 c3 status?
why are conservative groups singled out?
So why is it that a TEA Party organization would apply for 501 c3 status rather than 527 c3 status?
why are conservative groups singled out?
"conservative" groups are singled out as are any other politically aligned group. A 501 c3 status is not for politically aligned groups. The TEA Party groups could have at least been smart enough to hide their organization if they were going to try and sneak into the wrong line. I realize the TEA Party has a difficult time with complicated processes but at least take off the TEA Party t-shirt when you show up to the social welfare gathering.
I think donations no matter where they come from should be identified and tied to a person or group...
I think donations no matter where they come from should be identified and tied to a person or group...
So that they can be intimidated into ceasing donations, right?
So why is it that a TEA Party organization would apply for 501 c3 status rather than 527 c3 status?
why are conservative groups singled out?
"conservative" groups are singled out as are any other politically aligned group. A 501 c3 status is not for politically aligned groups. The TEA Party groups could have at least been smart enough to hide their organization if they were going to try and sneak into the wrong line. I realize the TEA Party has a difficult time with complicated processes but at least take off the TEA Party t-shirt when you show up to the social welfare gathering.
why are conservative groups singled out?
"conservative" groups are singled out as are any other politically aligned group. A 501 c3 status is not for politically aligned groups. The TEA Party groups could have at least been smart enough to hide their organization if they were going to try and sneak into the wrong line. I realize the TEA Party has a difficult time with complicated processes but at least take off the TEA Party t-shirt when you show up to the social welfare gathering.
So this is the talking point now? The people applying applied under the wrong section. Does anyone really believe that?
We know the truth. There was a sustained effort by the Democrats to suppress groups like this because they saw what the Swift Boat Veterans had done to Kerry and Obama was worried about the same thing happening to him.
Obama met with the head of the IRS many many times. He was probably not discussing the layout of the new 1040 forms. It was take an incredible act of naivete to believe this was not an orchestrtated effort to undermine the opposition. Then again, naivete is what the Left trafficks in.
Last year, mass hysteria broke out in Congress over an IRS scandal that did not actually exist. The IRS did not single out conservative leaning organizations applying for tax-exempt 501(c)(4) status. In reality, federal tax officials were scrutinizing applications from across the political spectrum using look-out lists of political terms commonly associated with the left and the right.
Misguided as this effort was, the IRS was attempting to prevent groups with purely political intentions from improperly qualifying for the 501(c)(4) tax-exemption. Unprecedented numbers of applications for 501(c)(4) status flooded the agency following the Supreme Courts Citizens United decision because like charities, 501(c)(4)s can keep their donors secret even if they funnel buckets of anonymous cash to Super PACs or smear candidates with their own malicious attack ads. In 2012, a record $1.28 billion was spent by outside groups seeking to influence voters, and though most it was spent by Super PACs that disclose donors to the Federal Elections Commission, more than a quarter billion dollars cannot be traced to any source.
Read more: GOP so-called reform of IRS protects secret money | TheHill
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook
Any idea what the difference between a 501 c3 and a 527 c3 is?
According to the Internal Revenue Service Code, 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) organizations are nonprofit organizations that are exempt from paying federal income tax. 501(c)(3) organizations are either a public charity, private foundation or private operating foundation with open membership whereas 501(c)(4) organizations are civic leagues or associations operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare or local associations of employees with limited membership.
So why is it that a TEA Party organization would apply for 501 c3 status rather than 527 c3 status?
Picasso you're not however. 
