E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSUpdated at 3:05 pm ET Democratic members of Congress and campaign spending disclosure advocates are demanding that the IRS crack down on political donations to tax-exempt groups called 501c4’s under the tax code for overstepping their bounds, going beyond their role as supposed social welfare organizations into political advocacy.
Groups such as the American Action Network, backing Republicans, and Priorities USA, backing Democrats, have 501c4 status and need not disclose their donors. But such groups are also supposed to be “social welfare” organizations that don’t have politics as their primary purpose.
All the media attention given to super PACs and to colorful, publicity-seeking donors such as Sheldon Adelson, has diverted attention from what’s likely the more important money spigot, the money 501c4’s spend on political advertising. As with super PACs, donors are not limited in the amounts they can give to these 501c4 groups.
Recommended: High court rules against FCC in clash over profanity, nudity on TV
A new study by the Center for Public Integrity and the Center for Responsive Politics shows that more political spending was done by 501c4s in the 2010 elections than by Super PACs, which raise unlimited sums of money but are required to disclose their donors.
“Super PACs -- while you hear a lot about them -- are not going to be the vehicle of choice for a majority of the money that’s going to flow into elections,” said Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., who is pushing for legislation to require disclosure of donors to 501c4s if they engage in political activity. Van Hollen is also suing the Federal Election Commission to try to restrict ads run by 501c4s.
But Democrats are in a somewhat conflicted position: on the one hand litigating against 501c4s, and yet in some cases benefitting from money spent by the Democratic-aligned 501c4s.
For those seeking to conceal where their political spending is going, “this is an easy way to buy a disclosure shield -- you just move it into a c4,” said Frances Hill, a law professor at the University of Miami law school and an expert on tax exempt groups, who spoke Wednesday at a panel discussion in Washington sponsored by the Center for Responsive Politics.
The IRS, in its “work plan” or agenda for the current fiscal year, announced that it would be spending time reviewing 501c4’s for their political activity, said Marcus Owens, a Washington lawyer who is the former head of the IRS’s Tax Exempt Division.
Despite the sometimes muddled legal definition and nature of the 501c4 groups, Hill said the IRS has been clear and “robust” in saying that such groups “may not provide direct benefits primarily to its members and contributors.” So for a group that is seeking to elect a particular person as president or senator and whose members will gain from his election, that may raise IRS audit and enforcement flags.
Recommended: Commerce Secretary Bryson resigns following health scare
Hill called on Congress to pass legislation more sharply defining what a 501c4 group can and cannot do.
But those seeking to spur the IRS into action may need to wait a long time for some indication of progress. Those filing a complaint with the IRS about a supposedly abusive 501c4 have “no standing to force the IRS to take action on such complaints and sometimes may never even know if the IRS takes an action,” said Heidi Abegg, another Washington lawyer with expertise in non-profits.
A 501c4 that is abusing its social welfare status to do hard-core politicking could face an audit and lose its tax-exempt status. But the IRS has a less than one percent audit rate of non-profit organizations, said Abegg. The IRS usually waits until a tax return is filed by the non-profit to see if it is obeying the rules and “an IRS audit may not start until almost two years after the activity has occurred,” Abegg said.
Donors to a 501c4 could be hit with the federal gift tax on large donations -- up to 50 percent of the amount they give, said Owens. “You have a real potential exposure and if the IRS was aggressively applying its published position and the position it prevailed on in three court cases, you’d probably need to hire a phalanx of lawyers to get ready to fight with the IRS,” he said.
But he noted that the IRS announced last summer it was summarily ending a series of gift tax audits of donors to 501c4 groups. “There was an enormous outpouring of concern expressed by Republican members of Congress” to the IRS about the audits, said Owens.
Republicans continue to defend the 501c groups from increased scrutiny by the Internal Revenue Service. On Friday Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell gave a speech at the American Enterprise Institute complaining about the IRS and the Obama administration using their powers “to harass or intimidate those who participate in the political process.”
“Sen. McConnell is trying to pressure the IRS not doing its job in revealing that some of these organizations are masquerading as educational and charitable organizations and are being used for political purposes,” said Van Hollen.
In a letter Monday to IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman, Senate Finance Committee ranking Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, joined by McConnell and eight other Republican senators, complained that the IRS “is requesting the names of donors and contributors to organizations that apply for tax exempt status. In doing so, the IRS appears to be circumventing the statutory privacy protections that Congress has long provided donors.”
The Republican senators said that due to an IRS rule that allows public inspection of groups’ applications for tax exemption, the donors’ names could be made public. The letter warned that “the public release of private donor information exposes citizens to possible harassment and intimidation by those who oppose the goals of the charitable organization.”
The new flow of political money from corporations and labor unions was made possible by the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision and a subsequent decision by the appeals court in Washington which struck down a ban on independent political speech by corporations, unions, non-profit groups and groups of individuals. Such speech regulation is unconstitutional under the First Amendment, the court held.
Those rulings didn’t change the long-standing ban on direct contributions by corporations, unions and non-profit groups to a candidate.
The Supreme Court is now weighing whether it should take the case of a challenge to a Montana law which bans independent political spending by corporations.
Leave a Comment:
Sounds like the Democrats aren't getting enough money in there C pacs so don't want the Republicans to get any either
Sour Grapes
Like spoiled children...
As Snuffy Smith would say ...... "Them dadburn infunnel revenooers !" Of course, Snuffy just did not want them getting his moonshine.
Now the focus has shifted, and we do have a conflict of some tax-exempt organizations sending their dollars out for political purposes. I say, ENFORCE THE RULES and let the chips fall where they may. If Democrats are bending the rules OR Republicans doing the same, simply REVOKE their tax-exempt status. Problem solved !
You'd think they would be content having nearly 24/7 coverage by news companies literally advertising for them.
Just look at all the ads MDNBC has that support 0bama; nearly every member on their news team runs an ad bashing republicans and supporting 0bama.
The only things that don't like exposure to light are criminals, cockroaches and politicians.
There's an important reason why political donors are made public! It's hilarious to watch politicians take a pre-emptive on this.
We kinda-sorta made a dent on Congressional insider-trading issues, how about we go after some of the ways that money/support makes it anonymously into the Capital?!
Why on earth would anyone be OK with money circumventing proper channels and scrutiny? Democrat or Republican
justMe-2526259, elliot-3020456 and TexasT-2966501
Do you support criminal wrong-doing as long as it is done by your favored candidates?
Here's a funny way of pointing out some hypocrisy, if you are for preventing these audits, then surely you must be respecting Obama's decision to exercise executive privilege on the Fast&Furious scandal!
Personally, I'd love for all of this crap to get aired out! I don't want to protect Eric Holder any more than I want to protect Romney/Obama's secret Chinese and Saudi donors :P
We need more scrutiny and visibility in DC, not less!
yet if the information jeopardizes current investigations, making any future prosecution impossible, would you STILL be in favor of that?
Would you have been in favor of releasing information that would have tipped off terrorists that we are on to them, thereby preventing their capture or deaths because they were able to adapt to it?
The biggest issue with congressional hearings is that there is no control over the proceedings, yet those proceedings can then be used in a court of law as evidence. In a court of law, or a grand jury, there is at least a judge there to vet any questions. Nothing of the sort happens in these congressional hearings. It is extremely prejudicial.
justMe-2526259, et al -- No, more like the USA is not getting the tax revenue it should get. What's wrong with you people?
Do you seriously believe it is a good thing for rich individuals or corporations to use these fake organizations as tax write-offs? Come on, there are plenty of true charities that could really use contributions, but no, this is what's going on instead.
Do you honestly think it's a good thing that the Koch brothers (Big Oil/Big Business) can have WAY more influence on elections than your one vote?
If a company supports a candidate with return on investment expected, don't you as a consumer want to know which companies these are? Let's say Home Depot favors lax illegal hiring laws, and you are against this, don't you want to know?
Or worse, let's say a company with foreign shareholders is supporting a certain candidate who advocates on their behalf, don't you have a problem with foreigners having influence in our domestic affairs and sovereignty?
It doesn't matter what Party you belong to. We should all want the law, including IRS tax laws followed.
@ Jonathan-1917156
I understand where you are coming from. But where is the national security risk from providing information on the Fast&Furious flub. If there is, fine, redact the information that pertains to specifics of the sting operations, but that is where it should end.
@ TruePatriot-445959
Absolutely agreed! I think the endemic problem here is that these people are simply political zealots, rooting for their side like it's their favorite sports team...They try to deflect for their party's shortcomings and try to attribute successes to aspects that may have no causal relation...but regardless...the last thing these types of people are exercising is any sort of critical reasoning. It's just Red vs. Blue, or (D) vs. (R) and that's all that matters...how many of their players make it on base or how many of the other team they strike out...to hell with anything else
I take it that it is ok with you that Republicans have sold out to Big oil/Big business? The GOP has become a commodity of the wealthy and that doesn't bother you?
Almost all of the documents relating to Fast & Furious have been provided, what the argument is about now are documents relating to CURRENT INVESTIGATIONS.
Second, what does it matter, congress has no authority in the matter. It really doesn't. If there is/was a violation of the law, that belongs in the courts, not a venue where an impartial judicial action would be at risk. (NOTE my last paragraph in that comment).
Third. What is the point of declaring the attorney general in contempt of congress, when the person who would determine if that charge should proceed is that very same attorney general. The appropriate charge would be impeachment, not a contempt of congress, but Issa knows full well that this is just the typical dog and pony show, so he won't go any further.
Fourth: Seriously? No...Really? (sorry to use your name in jest), but have you really looked at what Issa has been doing over the last 3.5 years? Because if you have, you would treat this for the joke that it really is. But of course when the shoe was on the other political party, Issa FOUGHT militantly to prevent the executive branch from disclosing documents relating to the practice of torture.
Nancy Pelosi's husband became immensely wealthy on Government contracts while she was in the Senate. The Obamas are worth more than they have earned. Bill Gates is a Democrat. So is Ted Turner, Warren Buffet supports Obama because he's the majority shareholder in Insurance giant AIG and they were bailed out by Obama using our tax dollars in return for Buffet's support. The idea that the Democrats are for working people is idiotic. I support the rich who rub it in my face (Republicans) over the rich who piss down my back and claim its rain (Democrats) on the theory that the liar trying to destroy me is slightly worse than the those who openly try to destroy me without pretending they want to help me.
Come on, the main point of any political campaign is to give people, corporations, or any other interested party the chance to buy politicians. Big campaign contributors and bundlers were well paid for their support for Obama through the guise of a federal stimulus package. So when politicians are not lining their pockets with IOU's and perks of the job, it is time to point out who they want the American people to think is in charge. Everything in Washington is for show, just as long as they get their dough.
I don't understand why republicans are not going after their elected leaders on this. Anyone that claims the president or the attorney general needs to be transparent with US citizens and then turns around and says that donors do not need to be disclosed is just being a hypocrites. citizens need to know who are the wealthy donors that are pulling the strings in the republican party or democratic party for that matter. the only reason we have citizens united today is because when it comes to fund raising the republicans new they would get spanked again by Obama under a normal set of rules. they had to go out and buy the supreme court to level the playing field because you cant get support from the masses if you are constantly taking away rights from US citizens
Jeff, if you are going to spew bull@!$%#, at least make it believable bull@!$%#.
1) Nancy Pelosi (from WIkipedia)
So unless there are lucrative wine contracts or the US government is all of a sudden paying money to support football teams, that comment is 100% bull@!$%#.
2) Warren Buffett is NOT, NEVER HAS BEEN a majority shareholder of AIG. Even if he was, that wouldn't matter now as AIG is now 100% owned by the Federal Government.
And if you want to make it a crime to be a democrat, then propose that, otherwise don't spew bull@!$%# that is about as easy to prove as 1 + 1 = 2.
They all disqust me!
Then why exercise executive privilege. If it pertains to an impending federal investigation, that's a different matter...but if it is not for that, why the need to pull the cover over this?
Agreed, and this definitely has many shades of witch-hunt all over it...I wouldn't expect anything less from this stupendously awful Congress. But again...why the need for executive privilege
Of course, but we can't depend on Kenneth Starr and his all-star cast because they've got too many skeletons popping out of their respective closets since Clinton. It was still a stupid move on the part of Obama to draw fire onto himself over this...people died because of this sting operation gone-wrong.
No worries...that's why the handle's there in the first place. I'm well aware of Issa's hypocrisy, but I'm still a proponent more often for disclosure than towards secrecy. I hold most of the politicians on Capitol Hill with extreme suspicion. I think that this country is headed down a very dangerous path that doesn't end well and both parties are working to hasten its progress. So when disclosure is discussed, I'm for more disclosure.
Sheeeesh, why don't these Democratic Congressional Representatives ask the IRS to CHARGE the 41 Obama White staffers (and some of their aides) in addition ot HUNDREDS of members of Congress in FEDERAL COURT for NOT PAYING THEIR BACK IRS TAXES ?
HOW many of these "elite" Democratic members of Congress complaining about campaign donations HAVE FAILED TO PAY THEIR BACK IRS TAXES ?
As a TAXPAYER, I DEMAND these CROOKS be taken to Federal Court.
Hypocrites.
ldo,
Which ones, if Geithner is in that list, not only did he pay the payroll tax obligations, he paid the penalty and the interest.
All the others as far as I know have as well.
So please, present the evidence.
Talk, talk, talk. That's all some of you do. Where have you been the last 21 + months. The Popular Amendment Movement posted two constitutional amendments on their website faircampaignreform.us in September 2010, calling for every individual to get involved in taking back our election and campaign finance system, as well as term limits for Congress. Download the petitions, print them out, sign them, then get your family members, friends, neighbors, etc. to also sign and do the same thing. Email all of your contacts and urge them to get involved. It is up to each of you to do your part to change the way our system works, not just sit back and complain. Note Sections 4, 5, & 6 of the Election/Campaign Finance Reform petition especially.
For those too lazy to check out the site, here are the two petitions:
Petition for US Constitutional Amendment For Election Reform
We, the undersigned US citizens, duly registered voters in our respective states/territories, do hereby petition for our state to approve the following amendment to the United States Constitution by the method noted below.
Election Reform:
1. Abolish the Electoral College (Repeal Amendment 12)
2. ONE NATIONAL primary date to be held on the Tuesday eight (8) weeks prior to the General Election day for Congressional offices and for the President. Candidate petitions must be filed with the local/state elections boards 60 days prior to the Primary Election date. Federal election petitions shall be uniform in every state and shall include a “contract with the voters” that spells out clearly what that candidate stands for on all issues that they may have to address in elected office. They shall be held accountable in court for breach of that contract if elected and any/all terms are not met.
3. NO campaigning allowed for any elective federal office more than 60 days prior to the National Primary Date.
4. NO campaign contribution shall be donated to any candidate of more than $200 from an individual or $500 maximum from a family (spouses/children living in the same household.) No donations shall be made to a candidate more than sixty days prior to the primary date. No candidate shall contribute from their own funds more than 60% of the total donations from other private individuals.
5. NO campaign contribution from any PAC, corporation, union, non-profit organization, special interest group, etc. shall be allowed for any elected federal office.
6. NO third party campaigning (separate PAC ads, corporate ads, etc.) for/against any candidate shall be allowed at any time during or before the election season.
7. NO party conventions shall be held to select the presidential candidates. The selection must be done at the ballot box in the primary election.
8. The One Man/One Vote Supreme Court ruling shall be enforced by this Amendment, namely that NO federal candidate selection shall be by any means other than the ballot box on Primary/General Election Dates.
9. National Party Organizations shall NOT raise money for or donate to specific candidates of their party prior to the dates outlined above.
10. PAC’s shall NOT be granted tax-exempt status by the IRS, and any non-profit organization who uses their funding for political purposes shall lose their tax-exempt status.
11. All lobbyists shall be outlawed from influencing Congress at all times.
This amendment shall be approved ONLY by State Constitutional Conventions to be called within 90 days of this petition being submmitted to a state’s Secretary of State. A minimum of 25% of the registered voters in each state shall be required to further this petition to the respective Secretary of State.
Name Signature State Address
Petition for US Constitutional Amendment For Congressional Term Limits
We, the undersigned US citizens, duly registered voters in our respective states/territories, do hereby petition for our state to approve the following amendment to the United States Constitution by the method noted below.
Term Limits for Congress:
1. Representatives to Congress shall serve no more than two two-year terms in the House.
2. Senators shall be elected to no more than two six year terms in the Senate.
3. No elected official shall serve more than six terms in office in any combined elected offices (House/Senate/Presidency.)
This amendment shall be approved ONLY by State Constitutional Conventions to be called within 90 days of this petition being submmitted to a state’s Secretary of State. A minimum of 25% of the registered voters in each state shall be required to further this petition to the respective Secretary of State.
Name Signature State Address
They just don't realize how flawed their product is...if Obama was the man of the people like in 2008 there would be no problem with grassroots donations, but he squandered any goodwill with idealogy ...Obama's magic is gone, the Hope and Change isn't working...out of ideas, out of touch, out of time. Say goodnight, Obama...
Not sure what repealing the 12th would do, the electoral college existed prior to the 12th, and it also determined how the VP was determined.
You also need to look at the impact of term limits on the areas that have them. California being the primary example. Things are arguably worse now with term limits than they were without them. The basic change though is that people are now campaigning for their next job rather than the next election.
Jonathan-1917156....
The ONLY reason Mr. TurboTax paid what was owed the IRS, with interest, is that he got caught and was up for Secretary of the Treasury appointment.
As for my post # 1.16 above, the IRS will not provide "names" (see the dad gum link). Nor will Mr. TuroTax go after the Obama White House staffers because they work for HIS boss, yet he has direct access to those "crooks" files.
Section 1 calls for the abolishment of the Electoral College which also requires the repealing of the 12th Amendment. That is why it is in parentheses, not to say that only the 12th Amendment should be repealed.
You will always have politicians campaigning for their next term/job. That is why the Term Limit sets the Federal Level at a maximum of six combined terms, so that they can't spend their entire political lives campaigning. Some of us actually were trying to figure a way of making the maximum terms six total of ANY elected office, not just federal, hehe.
ldo,
Actually he paid more than what he was obligated to pay because the statute of limitations had run out. And you seriously think that this is an issue that is only in the democratic party? You think that the democrats have a monopoly on having tax problems? yeah right.
Anti-trust,
1) removing the electoral college has impacted what, 2 elections in the history of the United States. WOW, now that is a big issue. Lets put that alongside voter fraud as a big issue.
2) So you would rather the politicians using their position to curry favor for those that would hire them when their term is up. Not sure if you got that point, seems you didn't. All you are doing is changing WHAT they are campaigning for.
Correct me if you feel I'm mistaken, but wouldn't repealing the electoral college be disastrous for the low population states. The reason for its creation in the first place was to prevent tyranny by the majority.
How sovereign will places like Montana and New Hampshire remain when it comes to the fact that they would lose almost all representation in choosing a President. Sure, they'll have 2 senators and a handful of Congress-people, but they might as well just dissolve their borders until they can consolidate into a more competitive voting bloc
I get the gripe with Bush 43 winning the electoral vote (barely) and losing the popular vote by orders of magnitude, but I'd rather treat a wound rather than resort to amputation.
seriously, the bush 2000 election was the first election in eons (one of only two ever in the history of the country IIRC) where the popular vote didn't win the electoral vote, and as you suggest, repealing the electoral college would just introduce other problems, especially if there is ever a 3rd candidate in presidential politics again.
It quite honestly really doesn't make that much of a difference (Nader in the 2000 election did more harm than the electoral college did).
What is of far bigger concern is that the election is really determined by about 15 states (if that), the swing states. The lack of credible alternatives in the electoral process does FAR more damage than the electoral college does.
An example, since when has the republicans mounted a credible challenge to Nancy Pelosi, or since when have the democrats mounted a credible challenge to say Ron Paul. That is much more of an issue to me.
"Groups such as the American Action Network, backing Republicans, and Priorities USA, backing Democrats, have 501c4 status and need not disclose their donors. But such groups are also supposed to be "social welfare" organizations that don't have politics as their primary purpose."
So does advocating for a political philosophy that the donors feel are in the best interests of 'social welfare' make them inappropriate?
Interesting issue.
It is all about breaking the law. The IRS should enforce those laws. Campaign contributions have been an abusive part of politics buying votes and influence. Almost every Congress member has been compromised by these contributions, and the presidential elections have been influenced by the big money interests.
Again I'll ask in hopes of someone having a clear answer, how is it that millions if not billions can be raised for political advertising but somehow America is debt ridden on so many fronts? Economy is a hot button issue this year and each incumbent has their views on how to fix it yet neither the current president nor the top contender for the seat even thought that this money could be better spent proving their points on their respective agendas with action. For example, both have argued about how they would help fix the education system but neither has offered a penny towards the cause, neither has chosen to lead by example or be selfless as should be expected of a leader. Instead their example is one of continuing greed and misdirection. They fight on broken promises and future offers of legislation that they apparently have no way of bringing to fruitation, even as a president, as the current one has shown over and again in his loses in congress. So I'll ask again, maybe differently this time, what is better advertising and will get people on your side, and to the ballot boxes, quicker, advertisment in billboards, T.V. bash campaigns, and lawn signs or advertisement in action such as taking some of those billions from unknown contributers and superpacs and maybe heading out to the people that are in dire situations and lending a hand or even to the occupy protesters and feed them and hold a county meeting in one of their parks to reconnect with the people they SERVE and listen to their concerns? We don't have real leaders any more apparently though because everyone knows they will see an Obama or Romney bash ad on TV but no one even imagines we will see one of these fools at any homeless shelter with a American Red Cross truck handing out much needed humanitarian aid.
I could not agree more! +1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1
From a business standpoint, it reminds me of sticky pricing and other forms of tacit collusion
Both sides recognize that it is not within their best interests to decimate their competition because it would result in a price-war and profit destruction in the industry. So each side just looks to see how strong of an opposition they are facing, and then they throw the weakest contender they can at it in an attempt to beat it on very low marginal terms.
It's why General Mills vs. Post don't get into a price war, it's why the airline industry is in the toilet and trying to crawl its way out by watching to see how the others raise their fees, it's why prices at the pump rise don't fall sharply when oil prices do, yet rise quickly when the opposite is the case (the price rise is driven by operating costs, the price drop is only driven by competitive forces).
Tying it back to politics. A highly competitive candidate that appeals to a broad base of voters will be less dependent on their own (or any single) party for support. The antithesis is a candidate that appeals to a narrow range of voters, but is more dependent on the party for support and marketing. The party wants candidates that look to them for instructions because it gives special interests a better chance of getting their voices heard.
I consider the elections devolving into almost a zero-sum game, and DC run almost exclusively by special interests as almost entirely correlated
And I'm sure these Democrats want the IRS to crack down on the tax exempt labor unions' political donations too....right????
And don't forget GEorge Soros and his MoveOn.org. Playing field is finally level and teh Democrats are whining like infants with wet diapers!
Unions are not 501c4 organizations.
SMH.
MoveOn.org is not a 501c4 organization, either, and has to reveal all large donors. That's how you know that Soros donated money to them....
Spider, does it hurt when you try to think? The topic is 501c4 organizations. Unions must disclose political donations.
What are the Republicans so afraid of? Why are they no longer in favor of FULL DISCLOSURE.
To protect our rights we should be allowed to see who is donating to the PACS/SuperPacs.
lollll
the best line of the day.
forget yesterday's big news?
the jobs president and the transparency president.
i do agree with the transparency part... everyone can now see through his bullsh!t
Republicans are beginning to act like Democrats. As they say, the enemy defines the rules of war. You can't fight a street fighter using the Margess of Queensbury rules. So now the Dems are panicking as they see the Republicans using their strategy! Watch them squirm!! What fun!
So if I take these comments literally, it is agreed that both parties are breaking the law and that equality of violation should make it acceptable? Are there no "clean deals" anymore? It appears that the surest path to defeat and destruction is to follow and abide by the rules ~ any rules, all rules. Seems the "cleanest" way to avoid these violations is to overturn tax exempt status for all entities. That would also include churches with their multi-million dollar campuses and property holdings but who use every available avenue to engage in the political process "without doing so," so to speak. Maybe we need a bloody revolution and simply start over. It is apparent the current system is totally broken beyond reasonable repair.
I wouldn't say Republicans are "acting" like Democrats. Republicans are simply using the same rules the Democrats use. There just doing it better.
Republicans,Conservatives, Tea Partiers would have to stoop awfully low to "act" like Democrats.
Just look at the difference between the behavior of the Tea Party Movement compared to the "Occupiers".
We know what "Real" Extremism and Radicalism is now thanks to the "occupiers" demonstrating it for us. and I don't believe they are done yet.
Sadly so.
Many people like to say that crime doesn't pay. But in truth, they're wrong. Crime pays handsomely...in the short-run. It's just eventually the undoing is typically 2x as brutal as the original offense(s).
The rules have been made to essentially allow the well connected and sophisticated to completely sideline without being actually breaking them per se...so long as one has the correct number of high-priced lawyers on their side to help them navigate those treacherous channels
I'm tired of all of this garbage. Washington is run by special interests and the two major parties are completely complicit, if not enabling it.
We have McConnell whining about insider trading regulations enforced on Congress and added scrutiny on abuses of non-profit charities to skirt disclosure laws and conversely, we have Obama exercising executive privilage on Fast&Furious to protect himself and Holder as well as not cracking open the rotten eggs of the Bush Administration's extreme rendition, water-boarding and violations of the 4th Amendment.
ALL of these people are dirty...shine a light on this nonsense...no one in their right mind should be advocating that we keep a lid on this when there's likely a HUUUUUGE amount of graft and serious threats to the long-term welfare of the US as a whole!
How many Chinese and Saudi nationals play a role these anonymous donations? Foreigners are expressly barred from interfering with US elections in such ways...but there's no way to control it if we shoot holes in disclosure laws!
The repubs were just moaning about Obama not being transparent yesterday right?? Talk about double standards! Do as I say not as I do. If these guys are true believers in their man then none of these guys should have anything to be embarrassed about or have anything to hide... put it all on the table. I think everyone should have their names out there so we can no who stands for what and cut all this childish crap!
There is only one set of rules for our country and they should apply to all ..not just the meager. its time to stop allthis creeping around behind closed doors and lay it all out there. We are grownup enough to take it. Im sick of the government and these politicians treating us like we are too timid or weak to take the truth. Heck we have been dealign with these cut throats for this long..I think we can take to truth. We already know we have been being scr***d by all you politicians for years now. We arent that dumb
David, There are fringe lunatics on both sides. I"m a life long Dem and have NO sympathy for the Occupy Movement. Tea Baggers are YOUR fringe side. I don't claim to say all Reps love TB nor should you say all Dems love and support the OM.
Issa is a joke. All one has to do is look at his record before he was put in his latest position. He came to the post with the plan to tie up congress (Dems in particular) with one investigation after another. I DO blame the Dems because it seems when THEY are in power, they tend to "play nice" with the Reps and seldom pull this crap. Reps are much better at dirty politics. Much more practice.
Jim in Texas, You are right! ALL tax exemptions should be eliminated for sure.
I would even like to see the hidden exemptions created by classifications of income eliminated. Why should an investment buck, or a capital gains buck, be exempted from paying the full tax that a wage earners buck pays?
Taxing everybody and everything equally would go a long way towards eliminating a lot of political spending.
501c4 groups that is not C pacs either way the Dem. are sore they aren't getting more money
So MoveOn.org, NPR, SEIU, and Media Matters are going ot lose their exempt status? About dang time!!!!
Nope the thug Dictator in the White House will use this to oppress anyone who refuses to bow down and worship him.
except his wife.
Lmao!!!!! It's funny because it's true!
x
.
sure they do the unions are exempt from everything Even using money from Republican members to run ads for Democrates Those people in charge of Unions have paid off so many Democrates they can do what they want
They get repaid though. Democrat legislators complete the cycle of corruption when they vote them big salaries and Cadillac pensions. And virtually all the stimulus money Obama has put out there went to union companies only!
There can't be any "Republican members" of unions. That would be heresy and the highest form of hypocrisy.
You won't find this story on MSNBC Spider; Surpreme Court rules against SEIU. The court ruled today for Dianne Knox and other nonmembers of the Service Employees International Union’s Local 1000, who wanted to object and opt out of a $12 million special assessment the union required from its California public sector members for political campaigning.
Mark your right...... the SEIU was slapped down hard. And all we hear about is swearing on TV lmao! The unions can even keep news off the media waves....all of them.
I was able to 'Opt Out' of the campaigning contribution requirement 15 years ago. SEIU was required to hand me the 'Opt Out' form with my other Union information when I was hired. In California none the less. Of course I'm not in Local 1000, I assume each local has their own rules. Although I'm still registered republican I'm going to find it hard to vote that way with my political "Peers" screaming that I am the scum of the earth. If they continue to generalize with the "All" statements, they will be losing a lot of votes.
Can't you read? The story IS there, along with this one.
Don't forget Planned Parenthood and all those Former Acorn groups that simply changed their names.
I was rather surprised when I saw a Pro Obama add on T.V. sponsored by Planned Parent hood because I thought PP was a non -profit...
And I thought they needed all that money to provide "well women visits and mammograms" for the poor. Running ads on TV could have probably covered the cost of several mammograms.
Planned Parenthood does abortion - not mammograms. They claim to do the latter but a sting was done where over 100 different clinics were called ane every one of them said they don't do mammograms. Hopefullyy Romney will stop them from using my money to kill babies!
And your source is what Watermoon????? (Your backside doesn't count)
HAHAHAHA...just not ones in the US anyway!
Ahhhh, defense spending and war, the only government make-work programs officially supported by the GOP
I'm so glad that I have 2 dangerous lunatics to choose from in November
What variety!
jollyoldsoul1 Just look how they tried to keep Fast and Furious out of the news.
Good idea.
We'll see what "Media Matters " is up to as well.
i wouldn't really worry about the IRS being a major player in anything.
they are more hated than ACORN
Democrats should be careful what they ask for. There are a number of so-called 501(c)(3) organizations that either directly endorse Democrats or have thinly disguised PACs that actually conduct direct partisan political activities like advertising. Both parties push the charitable/political envelope till it's absolutely ready to explode. Personally, I'd like to see the IRS get after all of the so-called charities that engage actively in partisan political activities.
Rainbow coaltion is one.
And all churches as well. ANY organization who gets any of the 50X ratings should be closely screened at all times for ANY type of political activity and lose their status when they even THINLY cross the line. Of course the real way to take care of that problem is to help get the two above constitutional amendments passed. That will ban all corporations, unions, non-profits, PAC's/SuperPAC's, etc. from any kind of political involvement in campaigns or third party advertising relating to any federal election season (House, Senate, and Presidential races.) Then it will be up to each of you to get the same bans inserted into your state constitutions for your state and local elections.
The US constitution explicity states that the US government and religion have a wall of separation by stating that the US government shall not enact laws in favor of or against any religion ... that applies to any and all religions.
Why would they get preferencial treatment by having laws (tax laws, but yet laws enacted by congress where all our tax laws eminate from) enacted to protect them from taxes and given special treatment above and beyond any non-clergy citizen.
Just the laws enabling religious entities to be free from taxes is a violation of the US Constitution.
That is unfair preference under the laws of this country in favor of religion above and beyond the duties of all other US citizens.
If religious preferences in US laws is unconstitutional, then equal protection under the law must be established.
Either no one need pay taxes, or all, including the clergy/religious institutions pay taxes.
If they want a constitutional freedom of expression appeal, bring it on. Lets erase their special priveledges for religion which is explicity prohibited by our constitution.
They are guaranteed the right to exist and people are guaranteed the right to practice their religions under our constutution, BUT IT NEVER GUARANTEED A FREE RIDE to any or all religion at the cost to taxpayers who must pay taxes that cover everything (roads, water, sewer services, etc) that they use as well.
Religious and their churches can spout all they want .... and I want my constitutional rights of protection under the law. If they dont pay any taxes, neither should any other citizen.
ps: the IRS is merely an enforcement agency ... all tax law and regulations emminate from Congress. To even get a stapler to do my job when I was an IRS employee literally took an act of Congress to get the funds for department budgets. I finally bought my own stapler (I spent approximately $150/yr to purchase my own supplies since our units couldnt provide what was needed to do our work: staples, folders, pens/pencils, tape, markers, etc.) after waiting 2 years to get one that wasnt broken and had to be constantly "fixed" by me with a letter opener to attempt to use to do my job.
Congress makes the laws, the IRS is the enforcer of those Congressionally enacted laws, just like a town or state's legislators enact town/state laws and the appropriate police departments enforces them. If you want change within the IRS, you must get Congress to change the tax laws. If the tax laws remain and the IRS were disbanded, the only thing that would change is who enforces the tax codes. I guaranteed you, you do not want private collection agencies to be outsourced these responsibilities. It was "tested" in 1998 and we just had unscrupulous collection agencies terrorizing individual taxpayers with simple past due accounts with no accountability to this country's taxpaying citizens for many of their unprofessional tactics.
They had better start with Media Matters!
I am not saying get rid of all liberals. I am just saying to remove all warning labels and let nature take it's course.
You know by doing that many Americans would die/get injured right? We are too stupid (as a nation) to check ingredients or use common sense. If there is no warning label we think "oh, nothing there I can just do whatever with it". Hell even with labels we still have problems.
It is not a "liberal" problem, it is an American one. Many of those labels were also put there by lawsuits because the companies would not place them there in the first place. Nice bit of self-regulation there huh?
And how does any of this relate to the story at hand?
I believe verifying eligibility to actually vote is far more important than Campaign funding.
Even more impotant is to verify eligibilty to hold an office.
Dahly, history disagrees with you. People are more them welcome to bleieve what they see on political ads are true. There are many examples of lies parroted by ads that have swayed elections or public opinion. HCRA for example. Many Republicans think it is a purely Democratic bill; they are wrong. There are many aspects of the bill that are Republican in nature. The Individual Mandate and Single Payer (Removed because Republicans were magically against it) to name a few.
Most Republican's believe the lie that Planned Parenthood uses tax dollars for abortions, like Watermoon here. That is in fact a bold faced lie and Senator Kyle's office acknowledged that this was a fabrication to the public ("not intended to be a factual statement").
A lot of people also believe that Keystone would generate hundreds of thousands of sustained jobs which is another complete lie. At most we could make 10k to 20k temporary construction jobs along the entire route of the pipe line and only several thousand sustained jobs. While jobs are needed badly they are offset in this case by the dangers a leak in the line would pose unless they run the pipe complete around the aquifer. Actually that would be best because the longer the line is the more jobs it would create. The pipe line will produce no oil for America; their intention is to ship it down to Port Aurthur for sale on the world market export tax-free.
On the other side, to be fair, many people believe the lie that pot is a gateway drug due to extensive campaigns going on for years to label it as such (almost any drug is a gateway drug, for most drug addicts). Medical pot uses are not out on the streets trying to score cocaine for example.
Some people also believe there is no need to crack down on border control, political donations, or that transparency is a bad thing. some people still think that their party smells like roses, which is a delusion; both party's smell like @!$%# because they are both wallowing in it.
Point is that as American's we are too lazy to be bothered to actually research the claims our politicians make. That makes political ads much more dangerous than voting eligibility.
@Watermoon
Still beating the dead horse that Obama is not an American? His mother was an American and there for he is an American; citizenship is passed to children from their mothers.
Geowil
The people who are easily swayed by political ads from their party (or its supporters) also lack the ability to be reasoned with in any logical way.
Awww man! You had to step on that land mine! Only citizens born on US soil (which includes US military bases and embassies) are eligible to be POTUS. You can be a US citizen born of a citizen parent, but if you were not born on US soil, it doesn't matter. This is the only situation in which there is a separate class of citizen in US law.
Anyway, Obama showed a birth certificate, and the birther nutters are still wailing...they will continue to do so until their dying day...nothing we can do about that...they're just like the UFO/alien-conspiracy wackos.
seriously,
Actually the current legal definition of natural born citizen is anyone that is a citizen from birth, so if your parents are american, and you were born outside of the country, you are still a natural born citizen.
The constitution only states that you must be a natural born citizen, but it left it up to congress to define exactly what that really meant.
@ Jonathan-1917156
So when is Schwarzenegger running for POTUS?
Since when is arnie an american citizen at birth?
@ Jonathan-1917156
Oh yes! Duh!
hehehe
lol i thought this was msnbc but all i see is right wing posts when do you guys find time to go to fox news and get your opinions told to you?
Fox doesn't allow comments.
We only go to Fox news to find out what the Lame stream media isn't reporting.
Like Occupy Oakland protesting the Human Exploitation And Trafficking meeting in Oakland. How dare law enforcement try to end human sex trafficking and exploitation of minors.
http://occupyoakland.org/2012/06/shut-down-the-pig-conference-june-13th-1pm-oakland-marriot11th-and-broadway/
"June 13th 1pm, Oakland Marriot – 11th and Broadway
SOLIDARITY WITH SEX WORKERS
MEANS PUTTING THE HEAT ON THE H.E.A.T. CONFERENCE
This is What Patriarchy Looks Like:
The H.EAT. conference is a conference of pigs and their nonprofit lackeys to increase the harassment, imprisonment, marginalization and criminalization of sex workers. Fronting as a conference against "child trafficking," this conference brings pigs and nonprofits together to develop policing strategies that line their pockets while leaving sex workers exploited and disempowered. Pigs and nonprofits hide behind lies about "safety" and "protection" while they profit off the incarceration and "reformation" of sex workers. These pigs and nonprofits neurotically plug their ears to the fact they themselves are exactly the reason sex work can exist. Sex work, like all forms of work, can only exist within a society based on hierarchical economic systems like capitalism, which are protected by the police and patronizing reformist organizations that keep exploited people from revolting. The pigs are the enemies of sex workers, and of all workers.
Let's shut this #$%^er down!!!!!
Converge Wed. 6/13 at 1 PM at Oakland's
downtown Marriott Convention Center
at Broadway and 11th.
Wear a bright colored face covering in solidarity"
Doesn't it make you feel proud to know the Democrats, Obama. Pelosi, have spoken out in support of Occupy?
Add Occupy groups to the list!
As soon as we all get done wiping the dirt off of our knuckes, you know, from dragging them through the mud and what-not. I do find it ironic that you seem to be the only "vox claimantis in deserto" here in silly liberal land! Have a great day!
Wow....anyone else notice all the fracking liberal howling dingoes are missing today. They must be taking a mental day off to get over the WEEKS of bad news on the liberal front. Either that or someones popcorn maker burned out and shes out shopping for one that pops the corn slathers it in buttery coconut oil and slides it up an alternative orifice!
Too funny JOS ! They saw an article on Mitt Romney and the Thursday afternoon "circle jerk" is in full session ..... all the regulars trying to out do each other with irrelevant, sniping remarks !
Well said JOS1!!! And have you noticed that the decorum has immediately improved? Hmm, imagine that...
How about eliminating tax exemptions for union dues that then go to political parties? Union dues should NOT be allowed to be deducted on your federal income taxes.
Not a bad idea.
Personally I think that Unions, like for-profit corporations should not be allowed to participate in politics, period. Particularly public service unions considering the unavoidable conflict of interest when it comes to competing with voters for influencing a politician's decision-making and election.
However, as I mentioned above, I don't think corporations (not specifically incorporated for a political purpose) should not be allowed to have any influencing force in the political arena either as it too can run counter to the interests and influence of voters. Not to mention that a corporation can act outside of the political interests of its employees yet simultaneously utilize said employee productivity to carry out its leadership's political interests.
Here's a staunch conservative's take on the matter
karen
Then also corporate donations should not be allowed either. By focusing on one side, but not the other, you are being unequal and therefore unamerican.
At least when I make the comment, I say, if you can't vote, you can't contribute, because that includes EVERY non person entity.
Hell unions make up less than 10% of the non person donates these days, so yeah, that's the ticket, let the Koch brothers spend as much as they can, but make it illegal for organizations that represent workers to contribute. WOOHOO, that's democracy for you.
Seriously and Jonathan, why haven't you gotten involved in the PAM movement yet? Or are you afraid to let people know you have if you did? Sections 5 & 6 of the ECFR constitutional amendment, as noted above in my other comments, do just that...they ban corporations, unions, non-profits, PACs/SuperPACs, etc. from any involvement in campaigns and third party advertising for federal elections (House, Senate, and Presidential.) Note also Section 10 removes non-profit status from any organization that gets involved in politics in any way and Section 11 would ban all lobbyists.
anti-trust,
I don't get involved in ANY movement officially because I am not a citizen. Nor do I donate to any political party, nor does my company of which I am one of the principal owners, nor do we donate to PACs, SuperPacs, UnobtaniumPAC's or anything of the sort.
@ anti-trust proponent
Because I don't agree with all of the content of the proposed amendment. I might support candidates that would support such a thing, but I think that the design still has a long way to go before I can see myself supporting it.
I like the idea of getting tough on handling political donations/contributions (both direct and indirect) and with structuring primaries across all states simultaneously as well as removing the political parties from their own inconsequential convention votes which they use to push their house-favorite.
The parts that I ardently disagree with are the dissolution of the electoral college and I think that the campaign finance reform is never going to fly.
This amendment, for all its merit is DOA because neither party will get behind it in its current form
There just needs to be a lot of work done on campaign financing in general. Our political system has become to much about who can spend the most and not enough about who has the best ideas.
What scares me are the vast majority of people who don't question the information fed to them in general, let alone from their party.
The fact that the more money that a candidate spends on political advocacy and attack ads on ones opponent(s), the better their chances are of winning.
As scary as this is, we've got a whole host of problems beyond simply where the money is coming from...the gullibility and willful ignorance of the masses is just staggering!
They are here trolling again!!
And here are the silly liberals crying again! "We're getting outspent! This is a travesty!"
It is when, per capita, your opponent has the ability to generate more money then you do. Oil companies have Republican politician's in their pockets. The oil industry as a whole made over a hundred billion dollars last year. No one has the firepower to fight against that in any sense.
You either play on a level playing field or both sides cheat. This is why we need clean elections and need to heavily regulate donations from all sides. Keep unions and corporations from donating at all. They are entities made up of a lot of people, not themselves people. By donating to one political party they are in a sense saying that no one that works here is Democrat/Republican which is wrong because if that were the case they were hiring based on discrimination; something that is illegal.
On top of this we need to limit all donating to $50,000 per year for any elections you may donate to. The money must come with documents that clearly state the individual that they came from; not the PAC, not the Bank, but the person themselves and these documents must be made open to the public.
Finally no attack ads. You campaign on what you are personally going to do and only that or you do not campaign at all. No more mud slinging, no more blatant lies, no more horse @!$%#. I am tired of seeing article after article about Rove and his new attack ad of the week. I am tired of seeing articles about massive, undocumented out of state money changing the political landscape by running said attack ads. The American populous is too lazy or stupid to actually vet these comments made in these ads and they have shown themselves incompetent in the ability to critically analyze anything.
So the Gov. has to do their job for them, much like the parents who will not teach their kids that Gays are just people and so the schools have to teach them something as basic as human and civil rights; taking up valuable class time that could be used for other things and that is in all likelihood useless anyway because when the kids get home their parents say something like "Your teacher was lying, Gay people are not people at all, so it is okay to treat them differently".
@ Geowil
Agreed!
Though I'd be fine with attack ads if the Truth in Advertising clauses applied to political campaigning!
It's amazing all of the bald faced lies being thrown about. Reminds me of the false-flag, propaganda and diversionary tactics used by the OSS, MI5 and SS during WWII to confuse the enemy and rally support
Social welfare group for the fuctardicans is like saying satan is Jesus. They day the fuctardicans do anything with social welfare is the day the earth stops turning. The IRS should bust their balls.
Liberals define social welfare as forcing people to be dependent on local and federal governments so that they have to vote for them to keep the doles. Check every city where Dems have been in control for decades and see that poverty and crime have not abated a twit even while poor are held captive in high rise "jails" and bussed to the polls to vote for the machines. Dems hate the poor and treat them as worse than dirt!
Meanwhile Obama's war on coal and fossil fuels drives up auto and energy costs on the poor while he schmoozes with his millionaire and billionaire friends at fundraisers costiing between $1200 and $40,000 for admittance. Over 1600 such gstherings since April - more than the last five presidents combined.
You are full of s#$t. The banks and wall street have corrupted this country and they are all fuctardicans like you. The fuctardican obstruction in the senate is unprecedented. Who is wallstreet giving their money too? The fuctardicans of course because you are all liars and corrupt. But I would not expect you to know that. There is a thing called the environment which you totally ignore. And your minion boss rmoney has dinners under paintings by adolf hitler. And what about your billionaire friends adelson and the other as holes just like him? You are a futardican suck wad tool that has no concern for anyone but yourself and will do anything and believe anything your faux bosses tell you. You are the ultimate minion of the Reich and an as hole to boot.
Dang offtheirheads, you sound especially angry! But that's to be expected from another silly liberal. Watermoon simply tells the truth, and you start spewing anti-semitic tripe. Time to get off of whatever WiFi hotspot you happened by, and get back to the movement! And for God's sake, please tell those other hippies to bathe!
Here are the democrats...........He's getting more than me....I'm telling....IRS....crack down on him please....because I want equal justice..this just isn't fair...
But in 2008....oh boy the democrats were riding their high horse..when they had 4 times as much campaign cash as McCain.
It's quite obvious to everyone...not many are sending donations to Obama like they did in 2008. His empty promises are the very reason...
Wahhh.....delusional democrats..they are going to lose in November big time....and they can't just that fact.
Has anyone looked at Gallup.com today..Obama's poll numbers are tumbling like Jack and Jill down the hill.
The issue is fraud in collecting funds for charitable giving and using the funds for political activity. Right-wing social engineering is not charitable giving.
YOU mean left wing fraud...funneling monies through Unions and Green Energy programs..that is then given back to Obama...you want to talk about fraud....YOU BETTER START WITH THOSE TWO. It is called MONEY LAUNDERING..and it's federal offense.
You guys are just mad because Obama isn't getting the kinds of donations he got in 2008....oh well..too bad so sad for Obama and the democrats.
And Left-wing social engineering is not charitable giving. It works BOTH ways.
Damn Julie I do love seeing you on here.
Trust me, the amount of money the Repuglicans raise will have no effect, except on those already convinced to vote like idiots. Look at Meg Whitman way outspending the frugal Jerry Brown, only to see her money vanish in smoke with no effect. People will not fall for this. The Demos will triumph in November and the Tea partiers will go home sobbing.
Time to end the tax exempt status of nonprofits that engage in political activity and religious organizations. Religious organizations are not charitable organizations, but use their tax exempt status to raise funds to support their organizations which often advocate against the human rights of their members.
Join PAM and help end that status, dls.
i guess we found 2 kinds of welfare the right wing love corporate and this type of social. Be careful you will lose your edge