Rob Rogers by Rob Rogers

Rob Rogers

Comments (17) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. dairyman23

    dairyman23 said, about 1 year ago

    So true. All political groups should not be allowed to be 501©4 groups.

  2. msowards

    msowards said, about 1 year ago

    @dairyman23

    ABSOLUTELY!! I can’t understand the big bru ha ha about this IRS scrutiny. Everyone has said no laws have been broken. They were doing their jobs ensuring that false applications are not being accepted. This is just another tempest in a tea pot brewed up by the right winger; it’s so reminiscent of the constant anti-Clinton campaign during his second term. And look where that got us a second helping of Texas shrubbery.

  3. mikefive

    mikefive said, about 1 year ago

    @dairyman23

    @msowards

    I would refer both of you to the IRS IG report and to IRS publication 557. The IG report states that the IRS went after groups applying that had specific words in their title. In the IRS publication, it specifically says that those groups can engage in political activity.

  4. Harleyquinn

    Harleyquinn GoComics PRO Member said, about 1 year ago

    You have two choices of bad customer service. We can either keep your group in limbo for 3 years with question on how you pray and book reports. Or you can change your name to a more liberal sounding name and you will be passed like Obama’s brothers organization. You choose sir.

  5. Robert Landers

    Robert Landers said, about 1 year ago

    @Harleyquinn

    At least some of the more reasonable posters on here (and I am even willing to give you the doubt and include you among them) have already unequivocally stated that ALL groups with an overwhelming political agenda should not be given federal tax free status. And that means conservative OR liberal groups. And if religious organizations want to enter the political arena, then they should also lose their tax free status. Now, if we could also get the more liberal or conservative posters on here to agree, then we could possibly put this particular problem to rest. And if you would agree, then also get with all of your representatives in the federal government, from your congress person on to the actual president!!

  6. motivemagus

    motivemagus said, about 1 year ago

    @Harleyquinn

    Actually, the IRS also targeted marijuana establishments.
    I don’t think this is a huge conspiracy; I think a lot of political organizations incorrectly applied for tax-free status because they thought they shouldn’t have taxes!
    I think ALL groups with a political agenda should not be given federal tax-free status, regardless of political alignment. Especially since many are just fronts for billionaires pushing their personal agendas.

  7. dtroutma

    dtroutma GoComics PRO Member said, about 1 year ago

    There are a lot of things IRS uses to “flag” returns, or applications, it isn’t just “political”, in general cases, but when seeking tax-free status, folks should be somewhat “aware”.


    Interesting the crackdown on medical marijuana providers is just as egregious, but not getting “conservatives” as bent out of shape.


    Bang that drum slowly, because we’ve had decades of right-wingers going after folks for political purposes, maybe it’s just time for “catch up”?

  8. Harleyquinn

    Harleyquinn GoComics PRO Member said, about 1 year ago

    FAIR TAX www.fairtax.org that would do away with the power the IRS has over who can or can not be apart of the political debate.

  9. Harleyquinn

    Harleyquinn GoComics PRO Member said, about 1 year ago

    @motivemagus

    Actually, the IRS also targeted marijuana establishments."
    Might be true but it is now an established FACT that almost all groups with names that sounded anything like conservative were flagged. that much was “leaked” out in a Q&A so as to seem to come clean. But that back fired and it was not just some low level employees. The bottom line is before a presidential election. The motive is also clear in that it was to hurt one side over another. As for your pot example so what? Did a non pot get preferential treatment over a pro pot?

  10. Harleyquinn

    Harleyquinn GoComics PRO Member said, about 1 year ago

    @dtroutma

    Bang that drum slowly, because we’ve had decades of right-wingers going after folks for political purposes, "
    Um really? Show me example of the IRS picking one candidate over another? I can. They are on record as to attacking anything dealing with those who did not want Obama reelected. Is that part of their job? and you are crying saying they did it 1st? really? Prove it!

  11. pirate227

    pirate227 said, about 1 year ago

    TEA BAG PATRIOTS”, I love it!

  12. mikefive

    mikefive said, about 1 year ago

    “The requirement is that the majority of the activities have to be for “social welfare”.”

    Yep. My major objection to 501c4 is their supposed non-requirement to report who their donors are (I’ve only heard this. When I jumped to the IRS rules on this, I decided I wasn’t that interested in verifying it). Can you spell “foreign donations through intermediaries”?

  13. Night-Gaunt49

    Night-Gaunt49 said, about 1 year ago

    @rightisright

    The “enemidia” was on your side when Pres. Bush was in charge. The same with any president but Clinton.

  14. ARodney

    ARodney said, about 1 year ago

    Actually, the LAW says that groups cannot engage in political activity. At all. The REGULATIONS to implement that law, written by the IRS, rather inexplicably say that you must be “primarily” engaged in social welfare. If the IRS hadn’t put in such an arbitrary standard, they wouldn’t have run into these difficulty. The real scandal is that none of the tea party groups had their application to be tax-free (and keep secret donors) denied. They should have all been denied, along with the Karl Rove and progressive groups.

  15. ARodney

    ARodney said, about 1 year ago

    @Harleyquinn

    Harley, the IRS quite famously audited a California church because it hosted a speaker who was opposed to war. This under W. Bush. Can’t have Christians opposed to war, now, can you. What kind of Christian would that be.

  16. Load the rest of the comments (2).