Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

BlueCaliDem

(15,444 posts)
8. The IRS should admit they wrote law and THAT is the wrong that they've done.
Thu May 16, 2013, 10:30 AM
May 2013
That is the scandal here.

They've changed the wording under 501(c)4 exemption from "exclusively" to "primarily", which opened the floodgates to the many corporate-backed/Koch-funded TeaBagger Party "social welfare" entities where donors could remain anonymous and pour in as much cash from god knows where, to fund attack ads against their political opponents.

Section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code defines tax-exempt social welfare groups like this:

"Civic leagues or organizations not organized for profit but operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare."

In 1959, under the administration of Dwight Eisenhower, the meaning of this section was changed dramatically when the IRS decided the word “exclusively” could, in effect, be read as “primarily.”

“For 54 years, the IRS has gotten away with the crime of changing the word ‘exclusively’ to ‘primarily,” said Lawrence O’Donnell on The Last Word Monday. “The IRS took a hard, clear word like ‘exclusively’ and changed it into a soft word ’primarily’ and then left it to the IRS agents to determine if your organization was primarily concerned with the promotion of social welfare.”
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/51873128/t/odonnell-real-irs-scandal-happened/#.UZTspaLOFr8


That's where the wrong and scandal really lies.

NO ONE in their right mind, not drunk on Koch Koolaid, that is, believes that any of those groups, especially Rove's Crossroads GPS, was working in the best interest of social welfare. No. One.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

But the main point of the Tea Party was to endorse Tea Party candidates! CJCRANE May 2013 #1
They had the right idea, but did it the wrong way. backscatter712 May 2013 #2
Also, Obama does not fire the IRS head unless they did something wrong. n-t Logical May 2013 #3
Well, I'll quibble with that a bit. . . markpkessinger May 2013 #5
I see your point. But I would hope Obama would not fire someone for no reason. Maybe I am.... Logical May 2013 #11
Here is an example of the White House reacting instead of finding out what the facts are.... xocet May 2013 #16
As much as I like Obama, in all faireness you are right! I was so furious over the whole Liberal_Stalwart71 May 2013 #19
Actually I think he felt that had to fire someone. This guy was the Fall Guy. I don't believe Liberal_Stalwart71 May 2013 #18
IRS should do more than target these political groups. Life Long Dem May 2013 #4
I agree, so long as that denial applies across the board to political groups n/t markpkessinger May 2013 #6
They haven't denied a single TeaBagger 501(c)4. Not. A. One. BlueCaliDem May 2013 #9
I read on here yesterday that 79 groups, or 82% of the total investigated, were denied. ieoeja May 2013 #13
It targeted the NAMES, not the political persuasion. n/t magellan May 2013 #7
The IRS should admit they wrote law and THAT is the wrong that they've done. BlueCaliDem May 2013 #8
+1 uponit7771 May 2013 #12
Inappropriate, sure. Misguided, yes. 'Wrong'... redqueen May 2013 #10
Would the people defending it do the same if it was Bush targeting liberal type names? Marrah_G May 2013 #14
The Bush administration DID target liberal groups. Going after the NAACP was legendary. Liberal_Stalwart71 May 2013 #21
do you suppose "peace" and"anti war" and "equal" or "community" or "democratic" librechik May 2013 #15
It would be wrong if they not only targeted the Teabagger groups, but also DENIED them 501(c)(4) Liberal_Stalwart71 May 2013 #17
That does not mean we have to agree treestar May 2013 #20
...and yet they did. Not one of those groups were denied special tax-exempt status. Not one! Liberal_Stalwart71 May 2013 #22
Which makes the "scandal" all the more ridiculous treestar May 2013 #23
They are so desperate and obsessed with destroying Obama and finally they got Liberal_Stalwart71 May 2013 #24
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Folks, it just won't do t...»Reply #8