Some of you, ya'all decide which ones, are taking what should be a legitimate questioning of IRS procedure in handling 501c(4) applicants, but isn't, and buying into the House Republican Dog and Pony Show hook line and sinker.
In fact, this business of allowing, in violation of the Statute, political organizations on both sides of the political spectrum to file under 501c(4) has been going on for years under both democrat and republican presidents -- it came to a head last year, and this, for two reasons: 1. The IRS was inundated with an onslaught of application the likes of which they had not previously encountered, and 2. The Republican House decided it was an opportune time to score some political points with their naive constituents in the populist movement.
The real issue is this: Why should any of these organizations qualify under 501c(4)? The only thing this does is make the pollitcal process even more opaque. The goal of all of us, if we believe in democracy and open government that is responsive to the people and not just to monied interests, should be to get dark money out of politics. To this end, it is essential that the suits against the IRS seeking to force the IRS to follow the Statute succeed.
The suits filed by organizations applying under 501c(4) are made frivolous by their dependence on an incorrect supposition. The IRS used review criteria that violated the Statute. Thus the IRS would have been committing an illegal act to approve the plaintiffs applications. IRS must not settle these suits out of Court, but instead ask the Court to dismiss them. In the case of plaintiffs applications having already been approved, it is impossible for a plaintiff to demonstrate damages from an illegal act by their own hand. The committing of perjury by the plaintiffs is dispositive.
The behavior of House politicians, in this instance, has been despicable, and insulting to our intelligence. I fully concur with ProPublica when the say: "...[This IRS business] is just the latest expression of Washington cynicism and its consequencesâ... the talk show hosts and their fellow travelers, and the representatives and senators and officials in the executive branch, arenât really looking for answers here. Theyâre just putting on a show."
______________________
P.S. this 501c(4) business has nothing to do with Citizens United. The issue here is "dark money" and Citizens did not address that. All of these organizations can qualify under section 527, they just can't hide their donors names. And that, "Maw Fella Amuricans," is the intent behind by the Statutes.
In fact, this business of allowing, in violation of the Statute, political organizations on both sides of the political spectrum to file under 501c(4) has been going on for years under both democrat and republican presidents -- it came to a head last year, and this, for two reasons: 1. The IRS was inundated with an onslaught of application the likes of which they had not previously encountered, and 2. The Republican House decided it was an opportune time to score some political points with their naive constituents in the populist movement.
The real issue is this: Why should any of these organizations qualify under 501c(4)? The only thing this does is make the pollitcal process even more opaque. The goal of all of us, if we believe in democracy and open government that is responsive to the people and not just to monied interests, should be to get dark money out of politics. To this end, it is essential that the suits against the IRS seeking to force the IRS to follow the Statute succeed.
The suits filed by organizations applying under 501c(4) are made frivolous by their dependence on an incorrect supposition. The IRS used review criteria that violated the Statute. Thus the IRS would have been committing an illegal act to approve the plaintiffs applications. IRS must not settle these suits out of Court, but instead ask the Court to dismiss them. In the case of plaintiffs applications having already been approved, it is impossible for a plaintiff to demonstrate damages from an illegal act by their own hand. The committing of perjury by the plaintiffs is dispositive.
The behavior of House politicians, in this instance, has been despicable, and insulting to our intelligence. I fully concur with ProPublica when the say: "...[This IRS business] is just the latest expression of Washington cynicism and its consequencesâ... the talk show hosts and their fellow travelers, and the representatives and senators and officials in the executive branch, arenât really looking for answers here. Theyâre just putting on a show."
______________________
P.S. this 501c(4) business has nothing to do with Citizens United. The issue here is "dark money" and Citizens did not address that. All of these organizations can qualify under section 527, they just can't hide their donors names. And that, "Maw Fella Amuricans," is the intent behind by the Statutes.
Well done, young man!