IRS May Make C4 Groups Pay for Keeping Donors Secret

IRS May Make Political Groups Pay Dearly for Keeping Donors Secret -- And Out Them

WASHINGTON -- For years, the IRS has done little or nothing to check the rise of overtly political groups that claim a special tax-exempt status in order to funnel secret money into election-related advertising.

But in a sign that the agency may be waking from its slumber, the IRS has sent detailed questionnaires to several Tea Party organizations -- and possibly other political groups -- to determine if they truly qualify for the 501(c)(4) designation intended for groups whose exclusive purpose is to promote social welfare.

Should any group currently calling itself a 501(c)(4) have its designation denied or revoked, tax experts said the consequences could be severe, including fines of 35 percent or more of the money they raised in secret. And the groups might have to make donors' names public.

Even loose talk about donor secrecy no longer being guaranteed could put a screaming halt to the extraordinary flow of money into these groups from deep-pocketed people and corporations that want to buy political ads without leaving fingerprints.

"If I thought it was important to remain anonymous for my business reasons or for my personal reasons, I wouldn't take any comfort in any assurances the organization has given me until now," said Karl Sandstrom, a former Federal Election Commission member who now works at the Washington office of law firm of Perkins Coie.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/0 ... f=politics

Come out, come out, wherever you are! Maybe if they can't hide under their rocks so easily, the money will start to dry up. And to answer the obvious question, 1) Yes I think it will hit the teabaggers twice as hard as the Dems; and 2) if it does hit some Dem groups, GOOD! The more money they bleed from the system, the more the elections will be about PEOPLE's votes, and not the desired-outcomes of corporations, and the Koch Brothers, and the Murdocks, yes, and George Soros.

LadyJazzer wrote:

IRS May Make Political Groups Pay Dearly for Keeping Donors Secret -- And Out Them

WASHINGTON -- For years, the IRS has done little or nothing to check the rise of overtly political groups that claim a special tax-exempt status in order to funnel secret money into election-related advertising.

But in a sign that the agency may be waking from its slumber, the IRS has sent detailed questionnaires to several Tea Party organizations -- and possibly other political groups -- to determine if they truly qualify for the 501(c)(4) designation intended for groups whose exclusive purpose is to promote social welfare.

Should any group currently calling itself a 501(c)(4) have its designation denied or revoked, tax experts said the consequences could be severe, including fines of 35 percent or more of the money they raised in secret. And the groups might have to make donors' names public.

Even loose talk about donor secrecy no longer being guaranteed could put a screaming halt to the extraordinary flow of money into these groups from deep-pocketed people and corporations that want to buy political ads without leaving fingerprints.

"If I thought it was important to remain anonymous for my business reasons or for my personal reasons, I wouldn't take any comfort in any assurances the organization has given me until now," said Karl Sandstrom, a former Federal Election Commission member who now works at the Washington office of law firm of Perkins Coie.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/0 ... f=politics

Come out, come out, wherever you are! Mayve if they can't hide under their rocks so easily, the money will start to dry up. And to answer the obvious question, 1) Yes I think it will the teabaggers twice as hard as the Dems; and 2) if it does hit some Dems groups, GOOD! The more money they bleed from the system, the elections will be about PEOPLE's votes, and not the desired-outcomes of corporations, and the Koch Brothers, and the Murdocks, yes, and George Soros.

So what? See <!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href=" 285bound.com/Forums/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=18640 " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">viewtopic.php?f=6&t=18640<!-- l --> Obama's 1% friend Buffett sued by IRS for over $366 million.

Oh, now this is just so rich. These organizations had to file for that status with the IRS, be approved for that status by the IRS before being allowed to tell anyone they were a 501(c)(4) and now the IRS is heading out on a partisan mission to intimidate those on the president's "enemy list".

What the various local chapters of the TEA Party are doing is not different from what the NAACP does, or the AARP, or the ACLU or NRA with their 501(c)(4) arms. They are all 501(c)(4) expressly because 501(c)(4) organizations are allowed to use their funds to lobby the government for what it is they are seeking which, in their opinion, will be for the betterment of society. 501(c)(3) is the designation for charity, and even they can, by filling out the necessary paperwork, devote up to 10% of their funds lobbying in direct support of a law or policy.

501(c)(4) is for political advocacy groups - which is precisely what the local organizations of the TEA Party are. They advocate for smaller government. They advocate for a balanced budget amendment. They advocate for politicians who desire the same things that they do. And they engage in this advocacy precisely for the same reason that the NAACP advocates for civil rights legislation and politicians who seek more civil rights legislation - they think the society will be better off if their views are adopted.

This is going to backfire on Obama and start everyone who disagrees with any portion of Obama's agenda asking if he will next use the IRS in an attempt to intimidate them. Obama is, or at least should be, smarter than to reach back into history and mimic the tactics of Nixon. Just one more link in the chain that proves Obama is an organizer, not a leader.

LadyJazzer wrote:
[snip all the bull crap]

Come out, come out, wherever you are! Mayve if they can't hide under their rocks so easily, the money will start to dry up. And to answer the obvious question, 1) Yes I think it will the teabaggers[/i] twice as hard as the Dems; and 2) if it does hit some Dems groups, GOOD! The more money they bleed from the system, the elections will be about PEOPLE's votes, and not the desired-outcomes of corporations, and the Koch Brothers, and the Murdocks, yes, and George Soros.

teabagging - the insertion of one man's sack into another person's mouth. Used a practical joke or prank, when performed on someone who is asleep, or as a sexual act.

Slut - Someone who provides a very needed service for the community and sleeps with everyone, even the guy that has no shot at getting laid and everyone knows it.

Rush slandered one private citizen, Lady Jazzer slanders thousands of private citizens. Birds of a feather. Lady "Rush" Jazzer.

P.S. And if I hear ONE MORE TIME from Archer (or LAdy Jazzer) that a Tea Party member(s) used the word to refer to themselves, BEFORE THEY KNEW WHAT THE WORD MEANT, I'll puke on them. It doesn't matter Archer. The word is foul and offensive and it doesn't make it any more correct for Lady Jazzer to use it then anyone else to use SLUT to describe private citizens. So shut up with the stupid analogy... it doesn't hold water.

After November - it'll be the Republicans turn to pick who gets hassled by the IRS!

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote: P.S. And if I hear ONE MORE TIME from Archer (or LAdy Jazzer) that a Tea Party member(s) used the word to refer to themselves, BEFORE THEY KNEW WHAT THE WORD MEANT, I'll puke on them. It doesn't matter Archer. The word is foul and offensive and it doesn't make it any more correct for Lady Jazzer to use it then anyone else to use SLUT to describe private citizens. So shut up with the stupid analogy... it doesn't hold water.

That foul, offensive word seems to be used by you more than anyone else here.....you just won't let it die, but instead bring it up in every thread that you can whether it applies or not......makes me rather wonder why you like that word so much....does it have special meaning for you? I won't even bother asking if you went after the tea party members who first used it....of course you didn't, they were conservatives and conservatives can do no wrong. But you just go on enjoying your use of the word, putting the definition in every thread you can. Maybe we should do a survey on who uses the word more, you or LJ? Or we could have a contest on guessing how many times you will spout your outrage at the word being used while you use the word, define it, and then blast others for using it.

I thought the threat to barf on me rather interesting, along with the demand to shut up. You've been on this board long enough to know such bully tactics don't work.

Have a day GOP, and watch that blood pressure......

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote: P.S. And if I hear ONE MORE TIME from Archer (or LAdy Jazzer) that a Tea Party member(s) used the word to refer to themselves, BEFORE THEY KNEW WHAT THE WORD MEANT, I'll puke on them. It doesn't matter Archer. The word is foul and offensive and it doesn't make it any more correct for Lady Jazzer to use it then anyone else to use SLUT to describe private citizens. So shut up with the stupid analogy... it doesn't hold water.

You think I give a rat's-ass what you think? Knock yourself out, Sunshine... The facts and the sources have been posted...Shut up? I don't think so. You don't have that power. So, STFU yourself. Save your bully tactics for someone who gives-a-sh*t.

archer wrote: Have a day GOP, and watch that blood pressure......

:thumbsup: rofllol

archer wrote:

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote: P.S. And if I hear ONE MORE TIME from Archer (or LAdy Jazzer) that a Tea Party member(s) used the word to refer to themselves, BEFORE THEY KNEW WHAT THE WORD MEANT, I'll puke on them. It doesn't matter Archer. The word is foul and offensive and it doesn't make it any more correct for Lady Jazzer to use it then anyone else to use SLUT to describe private citizens. So shut up with the stupid analogy... it doesn't hold water.

That foul, offensive word seems to be used by you more than anyone else here.....you just won't let it die, but instead bring it up in every thread that you can whether it applies or not......makes me rather wonder why you like that word so much....does it have special meaning for you? I won't even bother asking if you went after the tea party members who first used it....of course you didn't, they were conservatives and conservatives can do no wrong. But you just go on enjoying your use of the word, putting the definition in every thread you can. Maybe we should do a survey on who uses the word more, you or LJ? Or we could have a contest on guessing how many times you will spout your outrage at the word being used while you use the word, define it, and then blast others for using it.

I thought the threat to barf on me rather interesting, along with the demand to shut up. You've been on this board long enough to know such bully tactics don't work.

Have a day GOP, and watch that blood pressure......

The blood pressure is fine. I intend to rub it in Lady Jazzers face every time I catch her using the word. She play a daily double standard (which is par for the course for liberal) and I find the word offensive. And I'll be all over your case if I find you using it. I've been on this board long enough to know who the hypocrites and foul-mouth asshole are.

The Denver Post had a front page article this week about how Colorado Dem super PAC's out spent the Republicans 150-1 in 2010. Will these C4 groups also be checked out?

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:
The blood pressure is fine. I intend to rub it in Lady Jazzers face every time I catch her using the word. She play a daily double standard (which is par for the course for liberal) and I find the word offensive. And I'll be all over your case if I find you using it. I've been on this board long enough to know who the hypocrites and foul-mouth asshole are.

I guess you have been spending a lot of time in front of the mirror. There is no bigger hypocrit on this board than you are. Your threats to "be all over my case" matters not one whit to me.... I value your opinion about as much as I would a slug. You don't get to set the rules here. It is quite funny that you, being one of the most offensive posters here, are trying to coerce and threaten other posters to comply with rules of decency you made up.