Tea party types SHOULD be having their tax returns scrutinized

[Hugabear]

If you have a group of people whose mantra is that they don't like paying taxes, and many of them advocate not paying taxes at all, then the IRS absolutely should be paying closer attention to them. After all, by not paying the taxes that they owe, these teabagging extremists are costing us millions - if not billions - of tax revenue.

[Enrique]

1. it wasn't about revenue

it was about campaign finance, after Citizens United.

[librechik]

2. I remember at leat 2 (R) congresscritters who had staff BREAK INTO

Democratic computers and had access to them all throughout an election before they were caught. (2004 I believe) There was no screaming uproar about THAT. And now they are peeing their pants over a LEGAL AUDIT?????

I say, what are they hiding?

[Lady Freedom Returns]

3. Oh I agree!

I have seen stuff where they brag on how they are getting around paying taxes due to using their little political party like some sort of shield and getting away with it.

If we Dems tried that we would have had Reps eating us for breakfast way sooner than this!

I say audit down one way & up the other!

[Nye Bevan]

4. How about groups that advocate the legalization of recreational drugs?

Is it OK for their members to draw extra scrutiny from the police?

[cali]

5. sorry, but a huge no.

this is targeting for ideology and it sucks hugely. It's so fucking shortsighted.

It freaks me out to see this shit.

[Enrique]

6. thank you

it's good to see a limit on what DU will make excuses for. However, we don't know that's what this was about. That's what it looks like, but that would seem to be highly illegal and no court has made any ruling.

It also doesn't make a lot of sense, way too shortsighted as you say. What makes more sense is the explanation I read that this was a way to enforce campaign finance laws. That is something I fully support, although it will be a challenge for them to get that across in the face of the coming GOP clown show.

[cali]

7. I agree. We don't know. I was responding to the OP

[bemildred]

8. Correct. All political marketing organizations should be scrutinized closely. nt

[GoCubsGo]

13. Exactly right. n/t

[Savannahmann]

9. Yeah, because we really want the image of persecuting political opponents.

That gives them legitimacy, the same way that Voting Rights groups got legitimacy by being opposed by the powers that were at the time. Are you seriously saying that the image of persecuting political opponents is the one we want as we ask people to vote for us next year? How are you going to get them to support it? Will we call the election a referendum on the ability to persecute anyone who doesn't agree with the people in power? Seriously, we need to start thinking before we do things.

[former9thward]

10. Using the IRS against his opposition was one of the impeachment counts against Nixon.

What you are advocating is the sequel. We have seen it before, no need of a follow-up.

[Yo_Mama]

11. This was not auditing, but an attempt to block some organizations from gaining 501(c) status

Apparently some Jewish groups were harassed also.

No, it is never appropriate for your government to treat citizens or groups of citizens differently under the law because it either likes or does not like their beliefs.

Period. NO! The society this would create would be awful - and sooner or later, the focus would become groups you probably do support.

[GoCubsGo]

12. These seditious assholes should have EVERYTHING about them scrutinized.

That goes double for the corporations that they are fronting for.

[AtomicKitten]

14. I'd like to see how they qualify for tax-exempt status.