Lisa Benson for May 25, 2013

According to the MSNBS crowd this “IRS thing” is just a couple clumsy agents in Cincinnati that made a few mistakes. Riiiiight…..

I hope this lawsuit opens the teabaggers up to discovery. The reaction ought to be good, glass houses and all.

Wonderful, another waste of taxpayer monies for frivolous litigation.

If this were a Republican administration and the groups being denied tax exempt status were left wing you would be crying bloody murder.

You are a hypocrite.

Why would we debate it, you clearly do not understand what tax exempt status means or what the qualifications to achieve it are.

Would that be the “Great Unwashed Army”?

As I understand it political activity is prohibited for 501 © organizations. Therefore If an organization named “the Left wing of the Democracy for all Party” applied for a tax exempt status I would expect it to receive more scrutiny than an organization named “Aid for the Incredibly Stupid”

ReFlex-76 said, about 9 hours ago @ConserveGov “According to the MSNBS crowd this “IRS thing” is just a couple clumsy agents in Cincinnati that made a few mistakes. "- More like overwhelmed, and looking for a shortcut.-The IRS, “overwhelmed” by a flood of applications after the USSC ruling that opened the door to political groups free speech tax exemption, SURE THEY DID, instead of doing the normal work of quickly approving the exemption (as they did with Liberal groups) made the workload bigger and heavier by requiring information never required before and taking months and years to check, some 2010 applications are still not approved, with no fault of the conservatives who applied!-I wish I had swampland to sell you Liberal gullibles.

According to what I have read, any group whose primary purpose is to “educate the public” can apply and get tax exempt status. The TP claims to educate the masses.

A whole lot of astro turf. Not that I expect you to under stand what that means.

“Why is no one debating why “political” groups can get tax exempt status in the first place?”Because the media has a liberal bias? Err… wait.My question is why anyone thinks the donors of these tax exempt groups have a right to anonymity. We have freedom of speech in this country, but there is no guarantee of anonymous speech in the Constitution!

“What would your response be if it were democratic or liberal groups getting this treatment??”The only groups actually denied special tax status were progressive groups, not conservative groups. In 2011, during the period that “conservative groups were targeted” the New York Times carried the story, 3 Groups Denied Break by I.R.S. Are Named . The three groups? Drum roll … “The I.R.S. denied tax exemption to the groups — Emerge Nevada, Emerge Maine and Emerge Massachusetts — because, the agency wrote in denial letters, they were set up specifically to cultivate Democratic candidates.”

“I have yet to have seen an stateist groups that were turned down.”The ONLY groups that were turned down, were liberal groups. In the meantime, the Tea Party groups were not prevented from operating while they waited for the approval of their applications.If this was a high level conspiracy designed to stop the Tea Party groups from influencing the elections, it was a totally ineffective one. The accusation of scandal makes zero sense

“The iron is hot. Time to strike and do away with the IRS! FAIR TAX!”The UnFAIR Tax would replace our complicated income taxes with a national sales tax of 23%, which will shift a large burden from the wealthy to the working class. The 23% number is almost certainly far too low. Fair Tax advocates claim the economy will grow at a 10% pace under the Fair Tax, without explaining how taxing consumption will not in fact have a depressing effect on spending. The actual number would have to be closer to 30%.Yes, I’m aware of the ‘pre-bates’ that would supposedly make the Fair Tax, umm… fair. If you think that lobbyists won’t create the same hash of exemptions & deductions under a Fair Tax, that make our current system so complicated, good luck with your optimism.

“the social is political in this day and age, many liberal/progressive groups did as much or more politicial work and advocacy as the denied/delayed ones.”Again, the only applications that were denied were from liberal groups.Conservative 501( c)4’s vastly outspent their liberal counterparts:http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2013/05/conservative-groups-granted-exemption-vastly-outspent-liberal.html

The catch is that nobody would listen to any of Obama’s proposals for health care, and we ended up with a superficial rewrite of Romney’s health plan for Massachusetts.

It would be much more accurate to call it ‘RomneyCare’, and yes, it is a travesty to put it kindly. It is nothing but a gift to the insurers, without so much as a rudimentary disguise.

Thanks, Mitt.

Who is paying a tax penalty to speak out politifcally???

The teabaggers? Give us a break. The issue is not political expression, the issue is that with a 501c(4) they don’t have to disclose their campaign contributors.

If that put up red flags for the IRS, well, so be it.

What are they trying to hide? As it stands now, what we have is a decided non-scandal. If they wanted to create a scandal, they should have let the audits run and when they came out squeaky clean, then scream ‘scandal’.

Aren’t they confident their audits would prove no wrong doing ..?

If that’s the case, they should be screaming about the leak, not about the audits.

Again, if they are so virtuous, the best thing is to let the audits run. Then a complaint might have teeth.

This non-scandal has had the effect of hobbling, if not stopping the audits.

WHY?

Constitutional free speech includes the use of non-profit tax exemptions for groups established to maintain voluntary members, asking for donations and spending income to work for the goals of the organization. -Some lawyer please post and answer this Question, Wasn’t that what the USSC ruling meant in the United case?Opening the door to political non-profits being eligible for tax-exempt status?

from Wikipedia=

Supreme Court of the United States Argued March 24, 2009 Reargued September 9, 2009 Decided January 21, 2010Full case nameCitizens United, Appellant v. Federal Election Commission Docket nos.08-205 Citations558 U.S. 310 (more) 130 S.Ct. 876 Prior historydenied appellants motion for a preliminary injunction 530 F. Supp. 2d 274 (D.D.C. 2008)1 probable jurisdiction noted 128 S. Ct. 1471 (2008). *HoldingA provision of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act prohibiting unions, corporations and not-for-profit organizations from broadcasting electioneering communications within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary election violates the free speech clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. United States District Court for the District of Columbia reversed.

With that little smiley you’ve admitted you’re just another left-wing democrat political hack. Enjoy your Jim Jones recipe of kool-aid.

Teab——— The use of that pejorative is offensive and will be flagged every time it is seen in an original post!