IRS stalled conservative groups, but gave speedy approval to Obama foundation
Last edited Fri May 17, 2013, 12:30 AM - Edit history (1)
Source: Washington Post
When the Barack H. Obama Foundation sought tax-exempt status to raise money for good works in Kenya, the Internal Revenue Service provided quick help.
The IRS approved charitable status for the foundation, which was run by President Obamas brother and named after his father, in about a months time. The IRS also agreed to give the group this important financial status retroactively, back to 2009, when it had begun its fundraising.
The 34 days the IRSs Cincinnati office took to process the foundations application stands in contrast to the waits of several months and sometimes longer than a year that several conservative groups say they experienced with the same office. Obama has apologized, saying Americans have a right to be angry that the office improperly targeted conservative groups for extra scrutiny.
The IRS handling of the Obama-named group was revealed this week by a conservative watchdog group, the National Legal and Policy Center, and reported by the Daily Caller on Thursday. The Washington Post confirmed reports through public records of the groups application and the IRS approval letter, signed by the unit director Lois Lerner.
Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/irs-stalled-conservative-groups-but-gave-speedy-approval-to-obama-foundation/2013/05/16/90c53e8a-be57-11e2-89c9-3be8095fe767_story.html
SoapBox
(18,791 posts)...the Obama Foundation is not a Domestic Terrorist Organization like the TeaPukers.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)But the news didn't cover that. This is just the conservative billionaire owned media is shoveling more shit.
PatrynXX
(5,668 posts)zzzzzz most liberal group are knocked. I've yet to hear about any of them being denied. hence yeah So. big deal? no
marshall
(6,661 posts)Those in power get to call the shots.
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)Or, the Obama foundation had its shit together with the paperwork and requirements to speed things along, instead of forming out of thin air and making little pretense of being something other than political. Who knows?
IthinkThereforeIAM
(3,072 posts)... clear cut intent/purpose of actually HELPING in a social way, versus maybe helping in a social way while having a mega PR department, again, versus a department for actually distributing/providing assistance to to real people, not corporations.
tblue
(16,350 posts)Hmmm. So hard to decide which org is legit.
Why is WaPo even putting them in the same category???
Dollface
(1,590 posts)501(c)(3) regulations are much clearer as to what type of activities qualify.
Also, the BHO foundation is so small they can probably file the return on a postcard. It has received less than $50,000 in donations since 2008. Can't bribe anyone with that.
And finally, the Obama Foundation did a retroactive request for determination, (an application must be filed within 27 months after the end of the month in which they were formed) and so had financial and program information established when they filed.
Apples and oranges
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)Of course, it's merely the usual suspects spouting their usual bullshit, but this week they're feeling extra special!
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)The shit stirrers (who shall remain nameless, as well as gutless) have disappeared.
PatrynXX
(5,668 posts)Stick a cigar up Monica's.........
X_X have sex in various positions an. er wait a min must be Playboy week
like hey Republicans you only impeach if he had an affair. not high crimes like Bush and Cheney committed and Obama hasn't done that yet..
Raine1967
(11,589 posts)This is a fluckstick.
Politicalboi
(15,189 posts)Poor little babies getting stepped on by the President. I wonder how long it takes for the average person to get a new heart. The Dick Cheney didn't have to wait that long. Now that is worth looking in too. What child or soldier did he have killed for it.
Trajan
(19,089 posts)Let's not give them too much fucking credit, eh ? ... most of the recent presidents had foundations ...
And, he IS the President, after all ...
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)Micheal Douglas in that movie. I can't remember exactly what it was, but it was pretty damn funny.
tblue
(16,350 posts)and then follow through, of course. Best movie president's speech ever. Takes guts, i know, and courage and integrity and commitment to something more than donors, future prospects, and expedience.
VPStoltz
(1,295 posts)that this is actually a REAL, LIVE, social welfare organization and not a political scam like Crossroads.
This whole thing is getting me viscerally HATE Repugs.
dballance
(5,756 posts)So the Obama Foundation was applying to be a charity. Not public welfare group like the new Tea Party organizations. Apparently the IRS also retroactively approved their status. This likely due to the Foundation already possibly having a track record of what their actual business was. Unlike all the newly minted conservative groups.
On Edit: I helped set up our fraternity housing corporation as a 501(c)3. We got through the process very quickly. I'm sure it was, in some measure, due to us being a type of entity the IRS has dealt with. The IRS has already mentioned they with slammed with more 501(c)4 applications than they'd ever had before. There were obviously mistakes made on how to process these applications.
Do I believe the Obama Foundation might have gotten some express service when someone in the office saw Obama's name? Sure, that's not only possible but probably likely. What don't believe is that the Foundation got their status unfairly or that the President had anything to do with express service if that's what happened.
Until I see someone in a witness chair testifying that Obama greased the skids I'm going to go with not believing he did that. It would be incredibly stupid to do that during the first year of his first term.
SoapBox
(18,791 posts)Thank you!
The details of the type of groups is being totally lost in the breathless drama by the Limp Media.
DCKit
(18,541 posts)The Obama Foundation is a 501(c)3. Not a 501(c)4.
Additionally, one is an actual charity, the others are political entities masquerading as charities - not legal, in case you didn't bother to do the research.
When my Sunday subscription runs out, I'll never buy the Post again. I'm ashamed to see you've gone down the same road as the NYT.
tblue
(16,350 posts)They need to set the record straight. And lots of people read those letters when they're publishes.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Yeah, this is an entirely separate office from the 501(c)(4) people. Which is not to say that this decision was right (or wrong).
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)not the President's, so why is this bad news?
Iliyah
(25,111 posts)WaPo agreed with ABC on the effing e-mails. None starter and the RWers are always fishing. Now they are attacking Weiner's wife. These people don't want a better Amercia, they want to keep us in turmoil and broke.
LSK
(36,846 posts)Sounds like something that actually does deserve non profit status, unlike highly partisan tea party groups.
tofuandbeer
(1,314 posts)W T F
(1,145 posts)former9thward
(31,804 posts)They can be politically active. The 2008 Obama campaign organization, Obama for America, changed one word in its title and became Organizing for America after the election. They are a 501c4.
EC
(12,287 posts)Are we supposed to take this seriously? Are all the news organizations getting sloppy? I sure hope they researched this first. The National Legal and Policy Center are a right wing nut center that picked on Hillary and Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Charlie Rangel...see a pattern?
John2
(2,730 posts)understand this mess more and more now with what I'm learning. The IRS got their instructions to scrutinize the Tea party groups from Congress not the White house and the Press knows it. The Whitehouse is being played.
Democratic Senators that pushed this scrutiny are the ones that need to speak up and there are seven of them and the Washington Post reported the story when it happened. It had nothing to do with the Whitehouse. Republican senators and tea party people fought back at the time also, so in actuality, they also know where it came from. So you got pundits like Chris Matthews calling for people to get fired and putting blame on the Whitehouse when it was actually Congress made these Republican groups the issue by threatening the IRS with a written letter from them. That is how much power Congress has.
It was not wrong what Congress did because they are given the power to Legislate. These Senators threatened the IRS if they didn't scrutinize these groups more breaking the law, they were going to legislate a Bill to make the IRS do their jobs and scrutinize groups pretending they were social welfare organizations instead of political activists groups. These senators that initiated this need to stop their silence and put this issue to rest where the scrutiny came from. I think Chris Matthews and other media pundits are way outta line, when they are targeting the President and the Whitehouse on this issue instead of the real culprits in Congress.
alp227
(31,961 posts)A group of Senate Democrats, led by Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), complained to the IRS commissioner in 2012 that political groups were improperly claiming tax-exempt status and possibly allowing donors to wrongly claim tax deductions for their contributions.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)This may or may not have been a mistake; I don't know. There certainly are all kinds of sham non-profits (in general I think the IRS should be more, not less, strict on all fronts on this). But it's a different pipeline from the one that was over-checking things named "tea party" or "patriot".
cynzke
(1,254 posts)See the differences between a 501(c) (3) and (4). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/501(c)_organization#501.28c.29.283.29
To use the approval of Obama Foundation 501(c)(3) application in reference to the IRS controversy over handling of (4)s is very misleading. One is raising money for charitable causes. The other for raising social and political awareness.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)Still, political charities like Tea Party should not be allowed state tax free..easy federal grant money like a real charity.
"Political charities" should not be allowed to steal grant money from real charities or be tax free or give their 'donors' a tax deduction.
booley
(3,855 posts)I mean, helping the poor would not look as suspicious to non conservatives.
My understanding of 501 c 4 is they are supposed to be centered on social welfare.
Helping poor people in a third world country might seem more like social welfare then what the tea party groups were doing.
In fact, what social welfare does the tea party do anyway?
I'm not being snarky. I honestly have no idea.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,085 posts)Then who the hell cares?
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)the US government. See the difference?
Zoeisright
(8,339 posts)Was Obama's foundation whining about taxes? Were they gnashing their teeth over the IRS? No? Then what the fuck is the problem?
BTW, your "source", the National Legal and Policy Center, is run by a bunch of unAmerican racist assholes.