Posted on 02/17/2014 3:01:58 AM PST by rellimpank
The Internal Revenue Service is used to being universally disliked every April 15. But this year, the widespread denunciations have started early, and for good reason.
In November, the agency issued proposed new rules that are supposed to keep social welfare organizations from abusing their legal privileges by engaging in excessive electioneering. The effort came in response to complaints from Democrats about a 2012 surge in political spending by such tax-exempt groups, by the conservative Koch brothers and others to influence elections.
The IRS wants to curb such efforts, and it doesn't display much concern about the likely effect on free speech. But groups that engage in political advocacy, including the nonpartisan kind, are genuinely alarmed.
The groups affected are called "social welfare" groups, and they have always been allowed to spread their views about public policy. To remain tax exempt, though, they are supposed to spend more than half their funds on social welfare activities, which do not include politics. The trick is distinguishing campaigning from other political activities. And it's a trick the IRS clearly has yet to master.
(Excerpt) Read more at chicagotribune.com ...
Will they be looking at the electioneering that goes on in black churches?
The laws involved have been violating the 1st amendment since they were passed.
There is no clause in the 1st amendment saying that it’s OK to limit speech if the person or organization makes an application that includes giving their permission to have their speech limited.
There is no clause in the 1st amendment saying that it’s OK to limit speech if the person or organization makes an application that includes giving their permission to have their speech limited.
***********************************
That’s true but in order to be competitive your org has to be able to state that contributions are tax deductible,, applying for that tax status is now mandatory , if not in fact , then in effect ,, a 40% savings for the donors changes the amount given enormously... when the rules are unevenly applied this constitutes unconstitutional electioneering by the IRS.
When was the last time a black church was threatened for political activism... one near me had a 8*16 Obama billboard up for the last 2 elections.
There is a legal concept called equal protection under the law. And selective targeting of conservative groups by the IRS utterly fails that test.
What about the political activities & expenditures of Unions? Will those get scrutiny?
=======================================
DEMS STOOP TO CONQUEUR--- Vulnerable Dems want IRS to step up
by Alexander Bolton, The Hill, 2/13/14
Senate Democrats facing tough elections this year want the IRS to play a more aggressive role in regulating outside groups expected to spend millions of dollars on their races. In the wake of the IRS targeting scandal, the Democrats are publicly prodding the agency instead of lobbying them directly.
Dems are also careful to say the IRS should treat conservative and liberal groups equally, but they’re concerned about an impending tidal wave of attack ads funded by GOP-allied organizations. Much of the funding for those groups is secret, in contrast to the donations lawmakers collect, which must be reported publicly.
One of the most powerful groups is Americans for Prosperity, funded by the billionaire industrialists Charles and David Koch. It has already spent close to $30 million on ads attacking Democrats this election cycle.
“If they’re claiming the tax relief, the tax benefit to be a nonprofit for social relief or social justice, then that’s what they should be doing,” said Sen. Mark Begich (D), who faces a competitive race in Alaska. “If it’s to give them cover so they can do political activity, that’s abusing the tax code. And either side."
Asked if the IRS should play a more active role policing political advocacy by groups that claim to be focused on social welfare, Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) responded, “Absolutely. Both on the left and the right,” she said. “As taxpayers, we should not be providing a write-off to groups to do political activity, and that’s exactly what we’re doing.”
Shaheen called the glut of political spending by self-described social welfare groups that qualify under section 501(c)(4) of the tax code “outrageous.” Shaheen is in a good position now but could find herself embroiled in a tight campaign if former Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass) challenges her.
Sen. Mark Pryor (Ark.), the most vulnerable Democratic incumbent, said the IRS has jurisdiction over 501(c)(4) groups, as well as charities, which fall under section 5/01(c)(3) of the tax code and sometimes engage in quasi-political activity.
“That whole 501(c)(3), 501(c)(4) [issue], those are IRS numbers. It is inherently an internal revenue matter,” he said. “There are two things you don’t want in political money, in the fundraising world and expenditure world. You don’t want secret money, and you don’t want unlimited money, and that’s what we have now.” --SNIP--
=======================================================
MOMENTS TO REMEMBER AT THE VOTING BOOTH
<><> Seven US Senators ask the IRS to “Investigate” political opponents....
<><> Elijah Cummings led the Democrats pack in smearing Englebrecht....
<><> Obama said Tea Parties were a "threat to democracy."
They are among the loyal Democrats who voted in lockstep to throw Americans off their health plans. The lock-stepping Democrat drumbeat --- "keep your plan" ---- rang throughout the land --- in the historic straight Dem party-line vote for Obamacare.
FACTS ON FILE As far back as 2008, at the presidential debate in Nashville, Democrat candidate Obama advanced his signature plan that was ultimately enacted (by an historic straight Democrat party-line vote) into the "Affordable Care Act:
OBAMA: "No. 1, let me just repeat, if you’ve got a health care plan that you like, you can keep it. All I’m going to do is help you to lower the premiums on it. You’ll still have choice of doctor.”
Repeated over and over ---- with the promise that every American would be saving $2500.00 on healthcare costs.
LOCK-STEPPING PARTY LOYALTY NOT SEEN SINCE 1930-40's ERA EUROPE:
SEN. JEANNE SHAHEEN (D-N.H.): ‘if you have health coverage that you like, you get to keep it’ “My understanding … is that … if you have health coverage that you like you can keep it. As I said, you may have missed my remarks at the beginning of the call, but one of the things I that I said as a requirement that I have for supporting a Democrat bill is that if you have health coverage that you like you should be able to keep that. …under every scenario that I’ve seen, if you have health coverage that you like, you get to keep it.” (Sen. Shaheen, “Health Care Questions From Across New Hampshire,” Accessed 11/13/13)
SEN. MARK BEGICH (D-Alaska): “If you got a doctor now, you got a medical professional you want, you get to keep that. If you have an insurance program or a health care policy you want of ideas, make sure you keep it. That you can keep who you want.” (Sen. Begich, Townhall Event, 7/27/09)
SEN MARK PRYOR (DEM-ARK) He did something no prominent Democrat dares to do. He defended the hated "Obamacare;" Pryor said he was quite proud to have voted for it. (Sen Mark Pryor, Arkansas Times,Aug 15, 2013 .)
"What goes around comes around."
“What goes around comes around.”
Actually, it won’t ever “come around” as the right historically and philosophically rejects using the government as a political weapon,
and if they got the slightest inkling to do so (Nixon),
the press would be all over them instead of covering it up.
Better to entirely dis-empower the IRS.
You are not understanding what I’m saying.
Equal protection would see to it that all organizations will have their speech restricted, whereas a clear reading of the 1st amendment reveals that none of the groups should have speech restricted by law, that the requirement in the Revenue Code to muzzle political speech in order to gain a federal government tax bonus violates the 1st amendment.
Unless you’re in favor speech restriction, I would think you’d agree with me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.