Do you think the public supports tax exemptions for attack ads?

[Bjorn Against]

Last edited Sat May 18, 2013, 12:38 PM - Edit history (1)

The IRS "scandal" will backfire on the Tea Party and here is why: the public hates seeing the constant attack ads during election season and I think very few people were aware that most of those ads were tax exempt.

The campaigns of candidates running for public office are not tax exempt so any ads run by the candidates themselves are taxed, the ads run by dark money groups with 501c(4) status are not taxed however.

Generally speaking the campaigns themselves try to focus on positive ads that make their candidate look good while dark money groups help those candidates with the dirty work by running the attack ads against their opponent. I know there are plenty of cases of candidates running negative ads and dark money groups running positive ads, but these are the exceptions. Generally speaking the candidate wants to be able to say they are running a positive campaign so if they can get someone else to run the negative ads for them they can focus on positive ads themselves.

What this means is that most positive ads will be taxed while most attack ads will not be. Do you think the public will like that? I see a big push to crack down on all political groups who file for 501c(4) status in the near future.

[Generic Other]

1. Karl Rove's self-determined salary is tax exempt

That sucks.

[Voice for Peace]

2. NOPE

it's probably the one thing most people agree they don't like.

[Life Long Dem]

3. The President had this to say in 2010:

“Right now, all across the country, special interests are planning and running millions of dollars of attack ads against Democratic candidates. Because last year there was a Supreme Court decision called Citizens United – they’re allowed to spend as much as they want without ever revealing who’s paying for the ads. That’s exactly what they’re doing. Millions of dollars. And the groups are benign sounding – Americans for Prosperity, who’s against that…None of them will disclose who’s paying for these ads. You don’t know if it’s a Wall Street bank, you don’t know if it’s a big oil company, you don’t know if it’s an insurance company, you don’t even know if it’s a foreign controlled entity. In some races they are spending more money than the candidates…They want to take Congress back and return to the days where lobbyists wrote the laws. It is the most insidious power grab since the monopolies of the gilded age.”

http://wallstreetonparade.com/2013/05/it-wasn%E2%80%99t-conservatives-that-were-being-investigated-by-the-irs-it-was-the-koch-brothers%E2%80%99-front-groups/

[freshwest]

6. +1

[patrice]

7. KICK

[murray hill farm]

4. Instead of reacting to this latest problem within the IRS,

we need to address the whole issue by re-evaluating all existing 501c(4)s and evaluating them with the actual wording of the law, which is "exclusive" rather than "primarily" being a social welfare group. This is a gift from the repubs and to the country that they have so publicly and politically brought this to our attention. No need for defensive reaction here. This is an opportunity to correct the real problem within the IRS...and that is of not following the actual wording of the law. Talk about backfire!!! And it is the right thing to do!

[dreamnightwind]

13. Absolutely - nt

[patrice]

5. The purpose of these corporate persons is to acquire and to preserve tax exemptions so that they can

get free money/POLITICAL VOICE to further seek, acquire, and preserve exclusively THEIR OWN tax exemptions/POLITICAL VOICE ad infinitum.

[farmbo]

8. We need to be doing screen grabs of all these "social service organizations"

... So Joe & Judy Sixpack can see how they used exempt funds during the campaign to stoke the Obama Hate Machine.

And because the IRS had to back off any serious screening effort, they are now fueling 40% of their attack adds on the taxpayer's dime as a 501 c 4.

[awoke_in_2003]

10. You think Joe Sixpack cares?...

He probably applauds it.

[awoke_in_2003]

9. The average republican voter does...

they only get pissy when the ads are against their guy.

[Bjorn Against]

11. I think even most Republicans hate attack ads

Don't forget that a number of these ads are against their guy, Democrats have dark money groups as well. They are not as big as the ones on the right, but they still really piss Republicans off.

[awoke_in_2003]

12. I live in Texas...

and am surrounded by republicans. It is okay if their guy does it. If someone does it to their guy, though, call a wamublance.