Btw, the story mentioned in the Daily Caller mentioned donations. Something they have no right to have access to. Donor lists are not for public consumption due to privacy laws. The stories implied there was something illegal about not knowing who their donors are as a matter fact.
Isn't the Daily Caller that same outfit that paid a Prostitute to accuse Democratic Senator Menedez of pedophilia?
Report: Lawyer links Daily Caller to paid Menendez prostitutes - Salon.com
Not sure..could you clarify?
From what I understand Menendez didn't deny anything.
So now you're trying to change the subject.
Are you still claiming the IRS didn't release their opposition research to a liberal propaganda machine run by George Soros until after the election regardless of the fact that they were writing stories for months before the election about Tea Party groups under IRS investigation?
Just further proof that you understand absolutely nothing! Menendez denied everything and accused the Daily Liar of making it all up.
And ProPublica was writing stories about how phony non-profits were allowed by the IRS headed by a Bush appointee to pervert the law and finance elections while denying it to the IRS in their tax exemption applications. All of the phony non-profits reported on before the election had been approved as tax exempt so their application information was legally available. It just happens that most of the lying cheats were CON$, but ProPublica reported on the rare Liberal cheats too, but lying scum like you would never acknowledge that! See below:
How Nonprofits Spend Millions on Elections and Call it Public Welfare - ProPublica
We also found that social welfare groups used a range of tactics to underreport their political activities to the IRS, a critical measure in determining whether they are entitled to remain tax-exempt.
Many groups told the IRS they spent far less on politics than they reported to federal election officials. Some classified expenditures that clearly praised or criticized candidates for office as "lobbying," "education" or "issue advocacy" on their tax returns.
One group, the Center for Individual Freedom, told election officials that it spent $2.5 million on ads in 2010, when it paid for commercials criticizing Democrats in 10 districts. But it reported to the IRS that it spent nothing to directly or indirectly influence elections, calling those same ads "education" or "legislative activities."
In several instances, nonprofits funneled much of their money to other 501(c)(4)s , which experts say is a way to meet, or appear to meet, IRS requirements for promoting social welfare. Yet records show the recipients of those grants spent much of their money on political activities, whether ads or voter-registration drives.
For example, almost 70 percent of America's Families First's 2010 expenditures went to grants to five social welfare nonprofits. Four spent money on ads supporting Democrats or criticizing Republicans, including one group that put almost half of its expenditures into political ads.
No one from the Center for Individual Freedom or the American Future Fund responded to phone calls and emails from ProPublica asking for comment. In a written statement, America's Families First said its primary purpose was "issue advocacy" but did not answer specific questions about grants.
Campaign-finance watchdogs say the IRS has not clarified rules for social welfare groups or enforced them vigorously.
"The tax laws are being ripped off and the public is being denied information to which they are entitled namely, who is financing ads that are being run to influence their votes," said Fred Wertheimer, the president of Democracy 21, a watchdog group that has filed repeated complaints about 501(c)(4)s to regulators.
The IRS declined to answer questions from ProPublica for this story.
snip/
Many established social welfare nonprofits, such as the Sierra Club or the National Right to Life Committee, spend only a fraction of their money on political ads. But a few groups have devoted most of their expenditures to ads that have an undeniable political component, ProPublica found.
A group called Economy Forward spent $173,470 on ads in March 2010 praising Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, the Nevada Democrat, according to a transcript of the ad and public filings with eight TV stations in Nevada. That's almost 99 percent of the total the group told the IRS it spent that year. The group did not respond to repeated requests for comment.
More than three-quarters of the money the American Action Network former Republican Sen. Coleman's group told the IRS it spent in its 2010 tax year was for political ads. In an email, American Action Network spokesman Dan Conston said the group complied with all laws and government regulations.
"The IRS seems to blink if you push them on this, which is what groups like the American Action Network and Crossroads GPS are probably betting on," said Lloyd Hitoshi Mayer, an associate dean and law professor at the University of Notre Dame who specializes in the intersection of tax and political law.
