U.S. Sen. Carl Levin involved in Pressuring the IRS to target conservative groups

[whitehall]

It makes you long for the good old days when dinosaur "investigative reporters" roamed the earth and kept Americans safe from government abuse.

 

[gipper]

It makes you long for the good old days when dinosaur "investigative reporters" roamed the earth and kept Americans safe from government abuse.

Much of the media today believe its their job to protect government from the people.

History clearly reveals that uncontrolled government, whether by monarch, dictator, or elected leader; results in terrible consequences for the people. Sadly few Americans are aware to this.

 

[bripat9643]

from the op's link

it's not his job to get personally involved in pressuring the IRS do anything..You do understand that right? but you don't "care for all" do you

I don't think it is his job to personally get involved! But I also don't think that he did so, solely against one party or the other...he complained of several groups that he felt were NOT following the LAW...both right and left wing.

Regardless, he should have just kept his nose out of it!

BTW, who is responsible for making certain the IRS follows THE LAW regarding 501c's?

You have to be incredibly stupid to believe he wasn't pressuring the IRS to go strictly after conservatives. Which left wing groups did he complain about?

He didn't give a damn about the law. He was breaking the law. He belongs behind bars.

 

[The Rabbi]

it's not his job to get personally involved in pressuring the IRS do anything..You do understand that right? but you don't "care for all" do you

I don't think it is his job to personally get involved! But I also don't think that he did so, solely against one party or the other...he complained of several groups that he felt were NOT following the LAW...both right and left wing.

Regardless, he should have just kept his nose out of it!

BTW, who is responsible for making certain the IRS follows THE LAW regarding 501c's?

You have to be incredibly stupid to believe he wasn't pressuring the IRS to go strictly after conservatives. Which left wing groups did he complain about?

He didn't give a damn about the law. He was breaking the law. He belongs behind bars.

They all were. Levin. Cummings. Schumer. They were all putting pressure on the IRS to take out the Tea Party groups, especially after Citizens United came out. That was Lerner's statement in a meeting that's available on the internet. She was under tremendous pressure to do something about them. Now we know who was pressuring her.

 

[natstew]

from the op's link

it's not his job to get personally involved in pressuring the IRS do anything..You do understand that right? but you don't "care for all" do you

I don't think it is his job to personally get involved! But I also don't think that he did so, solely against one party or the other...he complained of several groups that he felt were NOT following the LAW...both right and left wing.

Regardless, he should have just kept his nose out of it!

BTW, who is responsible for making certain the IRS follows THE LAW regarding 501c's?

What I heard on news is that he complained of 12 conservative groups and one 'token' Liberal group.

 

[Care4all]

hmmmmm, so now I find this from September 2012,

Carl Levin on the Senate floor discussing the issue, ALL IN THE OPEN, nothing behind board...he obviously has a good case, and good cause for his concern...and DID NOT in any way HIDE what he was requesting from the IRS and ALL of his fellow Senators from the Right wing were well AWARE of his concerns and requests from the IRS for 2 years now....

So, after further research, I realize I was duped by the Right wing propaganda machine, and I take back what I said earlier...

Senate Floor Statement on the Internal Revenue Service and 501(c)(4) Organizations

Wednesday, September 19, 2012
Mr. President, our representative form of government is based on the premise that citizens who vote in our elections are informed about who is seeking to influence elections. Sadly, we continue to see that information obscured by organizations that are misusing our tax code for political gain.
As we have discussed on this floor many times, the Supreme Court opened our campaign finance system to a torrent of unlimited and secret special-interest money in Citizens United. But even the Supreme Court acknowledged in Citizens United that disclosure is important:
“[P]rompt disclosure of expenditures can provide shareholders and citizens with the information needed to hold corporations and elected officials accountable for their positions and supporters. Shareholders can determine whether their corporation’s political speech advances the corporation’s interest in making profits, and citizens can see whether elected officials are in the pocket of so-called moneyed interests.” Citizens United v. FEC, 130 S. Ct. 876, 916 (2010).
Yet, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, as of Sept. 13, spending on political advertising by groups that either do not disclose, or only partially disclose their donors, has increased four-fold, from $32 million in the 2008 election to more than $135 million at the same point in the current election.
These groups are exploiting our tax code by organizing as tax-exempt “social welfare” groups and then spending tens of millions of undisclosed dollars on political campaigns.
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) – the organization that grants these groups their tax-exempt status in the first place – should be protecting the voting public from these groups that pretend to be acting in the social welfare but are instead engaging in partisan politics.
The law in this area is clear. 26 U.S.C. §501(c)(4) states that “Civic leagues or organizations not organized for profit but operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare,or local associations of employees, the membership of which is limited to the employees of a designated person or persons in a particular municipality, and the net earnings of which are devoted exclusively to charitable, educational, or recreational purposes” are exempt from taxation. The word “exclusively” is in the tax code for a reason. Congress didn’t say “partially,” or “primarily.” We said that these groups had to be operated “exclusively” for the promotion of social welfare. The IRS, in writing the implementing regulations to the statute, said that, “An organization is operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare if it is primarily engaged in promoting in some way the common good and general welfare.” [emphasis added] By substituting the word “primarily” in the regulation with the word “exclusively” in the statute, the IRS essentially redefined what Congress required a social welfare organization to be.
Mr. President, I asked the IRS for an explanation as to why they have not responded to the increasing growth of groups that parade as social welfare groups but are obviously organized for politically partisan purposes. In my letters, I asked the IRS how they interpret the explicit language in the tax code which says that entities must operate “exclusively” for the promotion of social welfare, to allow any tax exempt partisan political activity by 501(c)(4) organizations. Their response? That the regulation has been in place for over 50 years. That’s not an excuse if new abuses require a review of an IRS regulation.
I also asked the IRS if they are fulfilling their enforcement function by notifying these groups that are obviously engaged primarily in political activity that they are violation of the law. Again, the IRS response was inadequate. During the past six months, according to the IRS letter, no notices of proposed or final revocation have been issued to section 501(c)(4) organizations. None. So even under the “primarily” test the IRS is not enforcing the law in the face of the avalanche of evidence that our laws are being flouted.
The law is clear. Even the watered down IRS regulation is clear. It is time that the IRS enforces the law, or at least its own regulation.
I request that the correspondence with the IRS be printed in the record.

• Levin letter to IRS re 501(c)(4) "social welfare" organizations [PDF] - July 27, 2012
• IRS response letter re 501(c)(4) "social welfare" organizations [PDF] - August 24, 2012
• Levin response letter to IRS re 501(c)(4) "social welfare" organizations [PDF] - August 31, 2012
• IRS response letter re 501(c)(4) "social welfare" organizations [PDF] - September 14, 2012

 

[The Rabbi]

hmmmmm, so now I find this from September 2012,

Carl Levin on the Senate floor discussing the issue, ALL IN THE OPEN, nothing behind board...he obviously has a good case, and good cause for his concern...and DID NOT in any way HIDE what he was requesting from the IRS and ALL of his fellow Senators from the Right wing were well AWARE of his concerns and requests from the IRS for 2 years now....

So, after further research,I realize I was duped by the Right wing propaganda machine, and I take back what I said earlier...

[]

You understand that here he is calling for investigating organizations that are operating. But the scandal is that the IRS delayed approval for organizations that had not started operating, right?
As usual you are totally clueless.

 

[Care4all]

hmmmmm, so now I find this from September 2012,

Carl Levin on the Senate floor discussing the issue, ALL IN THE OPEN, nothing behind board...he obviously has a good case, and good cause for his concern...and DID NOT in any way HIDE what he was requesting from the IRS and ALL of his fellow Senators from the Right wing were well AWARE of his concerns and requests from the IRS for 2 years now....

So, after further research,I realize I was duped by the Right wing propaganda machine, and I take back what I said earlier...

[]

You understand that here he is calling for investigating organizations that are operating. But the scandal is that the IRS delayed approval for organizations that had not started operating, right?
As usual you are totally clueless.

Did you go in to each link provided?

 

[Care4all]

and another question...if 501c's are ONLY suppose to be for:

Civic leagues or organizations not organized for profit, but operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare, or local associations of employees, the membership of which is limited to the employees of a designated person or persons in a particular municipality, and the net earnings of which are devoted exclusively to charitable, educational, or recreational purposes” are exempt from taxation.

What does it matter to you if these groups were approved or not approved, IF THESE GROUPS ARE NOT PERMITTED FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES, according to the law?

Are you trying to SKIRT the law?

 

[thanatos144]

and another question...if 501c's are ONLY suppose to be for:

Civic leagues or organizations not organized for profit, but operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare, or local associations of employees, the membership of which is limited to the employees of a designated person or persons in a particular municipality, and the net earnings of which are devoted exclusively to charitable, educational, or recreational purposes” are exempt from taxation.

What does it matter to you if these groups were approved or not approved, IF THESE GROUPS ARE NOT PERMITTED FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES, according to the law?

Are you trying to SKIRT the law?

You are a fascist. Just admit it.

 

[Care4all]

and another question...if 501c's are ONLY suppose to be for:

Civic leagues or organizations not organized for profit, but operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare, or local associations of employees, the membership of which is limited to the employees of a designated person or persons in a particular municipality, and the net earnings of which are devoted exclusively to charitable, educational, or recreational purposes” are exempt from taxation.

What does it matter to you if these groups were approved or not approved, IF THESE GROUPS ARE NOT PERMITTED FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES, according to the law?

Are you trying to SKIRT the law?

You are a fascist. Just admit it.

awwwwwwww, poor baby.... you just can't resist the poo poo and do do slinging, can you?

 

[thanatos144]

and another question...if 501c's are ONLY suppose to be for:

What does it matter to you if these groups were approved or not approved, IF THESE GROUPS ARE NOT PERMITTED FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES, according to the law?

Are you trying to SKIRT the law?

You are a fascist. Just admit it.

awwwwwwww, poor baby.... you just can't resist the poo poo and do do slinging, can you?

Since whehn is speaking the truth poo slinging?

 

[bedowin62]

hmmmmm, so now I find this from September 2012,

Carl Levin on the Senate floor discussing the issue, ALL IN THE OPEN, nothing behind board...he obviously has a good case, and good cause for his concern...and DID NOT in any way HIDE what he was requesting from the IRS and ALL of his fellow Senators from the Right wing were well AWARE of his concerns and requests from the IRS for 2 years now....

So, after further research,I realize I was duped by the Right wing propaganda machine, and I take back what I said earlier...

Senate Floor Statement on the Internal Revenue Service and 501(c)(4) Organizations

Wednesday, September 19, 2012
Mr. President, our representative form of government is based on the premise that citizens who vote in our elections are informed about who is seeking to influence elections. Sadly, we continue to see that information obscured by organizations that are misusing our tax code for political gain.
As we have discussed on this floor many times, the Supreme Court opened our campaign finance system to a torrent of unlimited and secret special-interest money in Citizens United. But even the Supreme Court acknowledged in Citizens United that disclosure is important:
“[P]rompt disclosure of expenditures can provide shareholders and citizens with the information needed to hold corporations and elected officials accountable for their positions and supporters. Shareholders can determine whether their corporation’s political speech advances the corporation’s interest in making profits, and citizens can see whether elected officials are in the pocket of so-called moneyed interests.” Citizens United v. FEC, 130 S. Ct. 876, 916 (2010).
Yet, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, as of Sept. 13, spending on political advertising by groups that either do not disclose, or only partially disclose their donors, has increased four-fold, from $32 million in the 2008 election to more than $135 million at the same point in the current election.
These groups are exploiting our tax code by organizing as tax-exempt “social welfare” groups and then spending tens of millions of undisclosed dollars on political campaigns.
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) – the organization that grants these groups their tax-exempt status in the first place – should be protecting the voting public from these groups that pretend to be acting in the social welfare but are instead engaging in partisan politics.
The law in this area is clear. 26 U.S.C. §501(c)(4) states that “Civic leagues or organizations not organized for profit but operatedexclusively for the promotion of social welfare,or local associations of employees, the membership of which is limited to the employees of a designated person or persons in a particular municipality, and the net earnings of which are devoted exclusively to charitable, educational, or recreational purposes” are exempt from taxation. The word “exclusively” is in the tax code for a reason. Congress didn’t say “partially,” or “primarily.” We said that these groups had to be operated “exclusively” for the promotion of social welfare. The IRS, in writing the implementing regulations to the statute, said that, “An organization is operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare if it is primarily engaged in promoting in some way the common good and general welfare.” [emphasis added] By substituting the word “primarily” in the regulation with the word “exclusively” in the statute, the IRS essentially redefined what Congress required a social welfare organization to be.
Mr. President, I asked the IRS for an explanation as to why they have not responded to the increasing growth of groups that parade as social welfare groups but are obviously organized for politically partisan purposes. In my letters, I asked the IRS how they interpret the explicit language in the tax code which says that entities must operate “exclusively” for the promotion of social welfare, to allow any tax exempt partisan political activity by 501(c)(4) organizations. Their response? That the regulation has been in place for over 50 years. That’s not an excuse if new abuses require a review of an IRS regulation.
I also asked the IRS if they are fulfilling their enforcement function by notifying these groups that are obviously engaged primarily in political activity that they are violation of the law. Again, the IRS response was inadequate. During the past six months, according to the IRS letter, no notices of proposed or final revocation have been issued to section 501(c)(4) organizations. None. So even under the “primarily” test the IRS is not enforcing the law in the face of the avalanche of evidence that our laws are being flouted.
The law is clear. Even the watered down IRS regulation is clear. It is time that the IRS enforces the law, or at least its own regulation.
I request that the correspondence with the IRS be printed in the record.

• Levin letter to IRS re 501(c)(4) "social welfare" organizations [PDF] - July 27, 2012
• IRS response letter re 501(c)(4) "social welfare" organizations [PDF] - August 24, 2012
• Levin response letter to IRS re 501(c)(4) "social welfare" organizations [PDF] - August 31, 2012
• IRS response letter re 501(c)(4) "social welfare" organizations [PDF] - September 14, 2012

11 of the 12 groups happened to be conservative

must be a coincidence

you're an idiot deluding yourself

 

[bedowin62]

it's nice to see left-wing nutjobs trying to get out in front of their latest scandal. it wont work

note to Mr Levin; get a lawyer

 

[Care4all]

hmmmmm, so now I find this from September 2012,

Carl Levin on the Senate floor discussing the issue, ALL IN THE OPEN, nothing behind board...he obviously has a good case, and good cause for his concern...and DID NOT in any way HIDE what he was requesting from the IRS and ALL of his fellow Senators from the Right wing were well AWARE of his concerns and requests from the IRS for 2 years now....

So, after further research,I realize I was duped by the Right wing propaganda machine, and I take back what I said earlier...

Senate Floor Statement on the Internal Revenue Service and 501(c)(4) Organizations

Wednesday, September 19, 2012
Mr. President, our representative form of government is based on the premise that citizens who vote in our elections are informed about who is seeking to influence elections. Sadly, we continue to see that information obscured by organizations that are misusing our tax code for political gain.
As we have discussed on this floor many times, the Supreme Court opened our campaign finance system to a torrent of unlimited and secret special-interest money in Citizens United. But even the Supreme Court acknowledged in Citizens United that disclosure is important:
“[P]rompt disclosure of expenditures can provide shareholders and citizens with the information needed to hold corporations and elected officials accountable for their positions and supporters. Shareholders can determine whether their corporation’s political speech advances the corporation’s interest in making profits, and citizens can see whether elected officials are in the pocket of so-called moneyed interests.” Citizens United v. FEC, 130 S. Ct. 876, 916 (2010).
Yet, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, as of Sept. 13, spending on political advertising by groups that either do not disclose, or only partially disclose their donors, has increased four-fold, from $32 million in the 2008 election to more than $135 million at the same point in the current election.
These groups are exploiting our tax code by organizing as tax-exempt “social welfare” groups and then spending tens of millions of undisclosed dollars on political campaigns.
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) – the organization that grants these groups their tax-exempt status in the first place – should be protecting the voting public from these groups that pretend to be acting in the social welfare but are instead engaging in partisan politics.
The law in this area is clear. 26 U.S.C. §501(c)(4) states that “Civic leagues or organizations not organized for profit but operatedexclusively for the promotion of social welfare,or local associations of employees, the membership of which is limited to the employees of a designated person or persons in a particular municipality, and the net earnings of which are devoted exclusively to charitable, educational, or recreational purposes” are exempt from taxation. The word “exclusively” is in the tax code for a reason. Congress didn’t say “partially,” or “primarily.” We said that these groups had to be operated “exclusively” for the promotion of social welfare. The IRS, in writing the implementing regulations to the statute, said that, “An organization is operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare if it is primarily engaged in promoting in some way the common good and general welfare.” [emphasis added] By substituting the word “primarily” in the regulation with the word “exclusively” in the statute, the IRS essentially redefined what Congress required a social welfare organization to be.
Mr. President, I asked the IRS for an explanation as to why they have not responded to the increasing growth of groups that parade as social welfare groups but are obviously organized for politically partisan purposes. In my letters, I asked the IRS how they interpret the explicit language in the tax code which says that entities must operate “exclusively” for the promotion of social welfare, to allow any tax exempt partisan political activity by 501(c)(4) organizations. Their response? That the regulation has been in place for over 50 years. That’s not an excuse if new abuses require a review of an IRS regulation.
I also asked the IRS if they are fulfilling their enforcement function by notifying these groups that are obviously engaged primarily in political activity that they are violation of the law. Again, the IRS response was inadequate. During the past six months, according to the IRS letter, no notices of proposed or final revocation have been issued to section 501(c)(4) organizations. None. So even under the “primarily” test the IRS is not enforcing the law in the face of the avalanche of evidence that our laws are being flouted.
The law is clear. Even the watered down IRS regulation is clear. It is time that the IRS enforces the law, or at least its own regulation.
I request that the correspondence with the IRS be printed in the record.

• Levin letter to IRS re 501(c)(4) "social welfare" organizations [PDF] - July 27, 2012
• IRS response letter re 501(c)(4) "social welfare" organizations [PDF] - August 24, 2012
• Levin response letter to IRS re 501(c)(4) "social welfare" organizations [PDF] - August 31, 2012
• IRS response letter re 501(c)(4) "social welfare" organizations [PDF] - September 14, 2012

11 of the 12 groups happened to be conservative

must be a coincidence

you're an idiot deluding yourself

What is your real concern? These ARE NOT POLITICAL GROUPS with a political cause, are they?

Yes or No?

 

[The Rabbi]

and another question...if 501c's are ONLY suppose to be for:

Civic leagues or organizations not organized for profit, but operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare, or local associations of employees, the membership of which is limited to the employees of a designated person or persons in a particular municipality, and the net earnings of which are devoted exclusively to charitable, educational, or recreational purposes” are exempt from taxation.

What does it matter to you if these groups were approved or not approved, IF THESE GROUPS ARE NOT PERMITTED FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES, according to the law?

Are you trying to SKIRT the law?

The IRS held up the applications for months and months. They asked questions that went well beyond any legitimate investigation. They only did this for conservative groups. The IRS apologized for this behavior. If the IRS apologized they understood they had done something wrong.
What does the IRS know that Care4all does not know?

 

[bedowin62]

hmmmmm, so now I find this from September 2012,

Carl Levin on the Senate floor discussing the issue, ALL IN THE OPEN, nothing behind board...he obviously has a good case, and good cause for his concern...and DID NOT in any way HIDE what he was requesting from the IRS and ALL of his fellow Senators from the Right wing were well AWARE of his concerns and requests from the IRS for 2 years now....

So, after further research,I realize I was duped by the Right wing propaganda machine, and I take back what I said earlier...

11 of the 12 groups happened to be conservative

must be a coincidence

you're an idiot deluding yourself

What is your real concern? These ARE NOT POLITICAL GROUPS with a political cause, are they?

Yes or No?

what law did they violate? specifically what chapter; what part of the law?
if it was so out in the open why were the e-mails speaking in code about "the project"?

 

[Jroc]

There should be a special prosecutor, They should give Lois Lerner immunity, and get to the bottom of this scandal. Carl Levin is not in this all on his own.

 

[The Rabbi]

There should be a special prosecutor, They should give Lois Lerner immunity, and get to the bottom of this scandal. Carl Levin is not in this all on his own.

Lois lerner is neck deep. SHe needs to be threatened with prison and loss of benefits, not given immunity.

 

[Care4all]

11 of the 12 groups happened to be conservative

must be a coincidence

you're an idiot deluding yourself

What is your real concern? These ARE NOT POLITICAL GROUPS with a political cause, are they?

Yes or No?

what law did they violate? specifically what chapter; what part of the law?
if it was so out in the open why were the e-mails speaking in code about "the project"?

Yes or No? Are these 501c's political groups with a political cause or not?

What is it that you are fighting for...? What is it that you believe is happening here? Right wing political groups are being unfairly scrutinized???