IRS 501 Code: "must refrain from traditional partisan political activity, like endorsing candidates"

[kpete]

Last edited Thu May 16, 2013, 10:41 AM - Edit history (1)

...........................

It’s important to review why the Tea Party groups were petitioning the I.R.S. anyway. They were seeking approval to operate under section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code. This would require them to be “social welfare,” not political, operations. There are significant advantages to being a 501(c)(4). These groups don’t pay taxes; they don’t have to disclose their donors—unlike traditional political organizations, such as political-action committees. In return for the tax advantage and the secrecy, the 501(c)(4) organizations must refrain from traditional partisan political activity, like endorsing candidates.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2013/05/irs-scandal-tea-party-oversight.html

TeaParty911.com strives to list here only candidates with true Tea Party support. We will be updating the endorsed candidates on this page on a regular basis throughout the 2013-2014 election cycle, so check back here often to see who’s new.

KONNI BURTON ANNOUNCES CAMPAIGN FOR STATE SENATE DISTRICT 10

Posted May 15, 2013

http://www.teaparty911.com/info/candidates.htm

The Tea Party is still endorsing candidates so the IRS has evidence that the Tea Party is breaking the law but now they have to stop investigating them?

http://news.firedoglake.com/2013/05/16/irs-commissioner-fired/#comments

[MineralMan]

1. I don't think that organization is a 501(c)(4)

organization. Their disclaimer on the donation page says that contributions aren't tax deductible, and they don't mention that status. So, this may not be a valid issue with regard to that particular organization.

[magellan]

4. It's a good example of what the IRS was up against, though

teaparty911. How many variations of group names can there be with just the words "tea party" in them? If you google "teaparty" you start to get an idea.

theteaparty
teapartypatriots
teapartyexpress
oregonteaparty
teapartycommunity...

These are all political-sounding names. If the IRS was under-resourced to handle the influx of 501(c)(4) applications, which it appears they were, then it's at least understandable that they'd take shortcuts to quickly identify groups of applications that were likely not fit for approval on grounds of political activity.

[MineralMan]

7. But this one wouldn't have been looked at. It's a PAC.

It's still noxious, though, and is part of the problem. It's just not an example of what the IRS was looking for. They were looking at organizations that had submitted applications, but selectively. That was their mistake. The example organization never sent an application and wasn't applying for that status.

[magellan]

8. Sorry, I think I didn't make my point clearly

I know teaparty911 isn't tax-exempt. I was just using its name as an example of the many variations of political-sounding names that the IRS had to sift through and check.

[MineralMan]

9. No, I understood your point.

And I agree. It's just that the examples that get used should be real ones, not ones for which the issue doesn't apply.

[magellan]

10. I think kpete included that website

...only to show that many groups with "Tea Party", etc, in their name are politically active, making it logical for the IRS to use those keywords to filter out applications for tax-exempt status for further scrutiny.

[Fire Walk With Me]

2. Didn't they endorse FL and WI's governors? And they're owned by the Koch bros

and ARE a political action committee, so EVERYTHING they do is political. And against the American people, due to the little thing about corporate influence of State being FASCISM.

[JoePhilly]

3. The idea that Tea Party groups are not political is ridiculous on its face.

[unblock]

5. the problem is that the irs code in this area, as i undertanding it, is a joke

advocating for particular political parties or candidates is not permitted for 501(c)(4)s, but advocating for *issues* that are near and dear to those political parties or candidates is fine.

so it's perfectly fine for a tax exempt organization to advertise for obamacare but not obama; libertarianism but not the libertarian party, any politician's signature plan but not that politician, or, as in the case of the tea party, lower taxes, flat taxes, repeal of income taxes, whatever, but not the republican party or any particular tea party candidates.

that's a pretty silly place to draw the line between "political activity" and "social welfare" or "community education".

[kysrsoze]

6. However, trashing a candidate's opponent is apparently not considered political activity

Complete sham.