IRS Scandal: Why Should Tea Party Groups Have Any Tax Exemptions?

The rules for tax exemptions for organizations are not well-understood. They tend to be complicated and, even then not well-enforced. Still, it is fair to ask, when it comes to tax exemption, what makes the Tea Party organizations so special?

It has been really hard to get my head around the recent “scandals” that have “plagued” Obama’s second term. Quotation marks are mandatory in this case since, as far as I can see, the scandals seem to be an imaginative invention manufactured by the Republican Congress and a mainstream media.

(To be sure, there are questions that should be asked to the president about, for example, the handling of such things as Gitmo, the legality of drones, press freedom and other things.)

The investigation of the Benghazi tragedy has dragged along becoming less and less productive and more and more embarrassing for the investigators. All of the rocks have been squeezed and much to their dismay, GOP congressmen have found not even a drop of blood.

However, the most ridiculous of these so-called scandals has been the accusation of the IRS targeting Tea Party tax-exempt organizations. (Daily Kos has called the whole affair a "Scandalnavian nothing-burger.")

Targeting Flaunters

As long-time readers of this blog may know, we have examined the possible violations of both Tea Party and Christian right-wing 501(c)3 and 501(c)4 organizations in the past. The abuse of their tax-exempt status has been openly flaunted. It was clear that something had to be done.

In the run-up to the election, religious organizations, in particular, seem to challenge the administration to take action. A careful reading of the tax codes demonstrates beyond much doubt that these organizations should have come under some kind of scrutiny at least.

And yet, somehow we find the entire argument re-framed as "targeting" and "profiling." Is it really wrong to target those who publicly flaunt the law?

When Leona ("Queen of Mean") Hemsley went on 60 minutes and proclaimed “We don't pay taxes. Only the little people pay taxes” would anybody have accused the IRS of targeting super-wealthy hoteliers?
No.
Most people felt she deserved what she got for thinking she was somehow untouchable. Today the Republican party has become the chosen defenders of anybody who would defy  the IRS and the Obama administration, in general. 

Teddy Roosevelt and Citizens United

This quote comes from Roosevelt's State of the Union Address- December 3, 1906. In that speech- which is evidence of Roosevelt's long windedness- we also find this quote:

There are at this moment wealthy reactionaries of such obtuse morality that they regard the public servant who prosecutes them when they violate the law, or who seeks to make them bear their proper share of the public burdens, as being even more objectionable than the violent agitator who hounds on the mob to plunder the rich.

To read the entire speech go to this link.

Runaway SuperPACs and the Devolution of Mitt Romney

by Nomad

In yet another case of an "evolving" opinion, Republican Mitt Romney has once again betrayed the high-minded rhetoric of his past campaigns in favor of a more corrupt but lucrative political strategy. Romney has now made it quite clear, he has a price and he is ready to take bids.

Back in 1994 in Burlington, Massachusetts, Mitt Romney spoke about the growing influence of political action lobbying organizations. He told the gathered businessmen the Burlington Business Round Table, 

“I also would abolish PACs. You probably have one – I don’t like them. I don’t like the influence of money – whether it’s business, labor or any other group. I do not like that kind of influence. Lobbyists, I want to register, know who they are. I want to make sure gifts are limited. I think we have to really become much more vigilant in seeing the impact on money – and I don’t care how it’s organized – on politics.”

The "evolved" Romney of today is, however, far less idealistic and, with the Supreme Court's support of Citizens United, he seems quite willing to sell himself to whomever has the cash. Romney's SuperPAC (the nonsensically named) Restore Our Future announced in June that it had collected $100 million. Late last year, I wrote a detailed post on the early million dollar contributors to Restore our Future and the methods they used to remain covert. Open Secrets has a updated list of the names and amounts of the top contributors.

Puppet Masters Koch Brothers and Pinocchio Mitt Romney

Mitt Romney's nose gets longer and longer

by Nomad

Once again, the American public is witness to the folly of the Supreme Court's decision in the Citizens United decision. The Brothers Koch recently launched a $6.1 million attack ad against the Obama administration which quickly received a "Pants on Fire" rating from PolitiFact.

The factchecker at the Washington Post had this to say about the ad which was sponsored by the Americans for Prosperity - an astroturf organization created and heavily-funded by the Koch Brothers.

Our Factchecker deemed this ad false, relying on since-debunked claims about the stimulus. “One can certainly raise questions about how stimulus funding was used and whether it was effective,” he wrote. “But there is no excuse for these kinds of ads, which take facts out of context or simply invent them.”

Out of respect for my readers and the truth, I will only give you a link to the original ad. Falsehoods when repeated often enough bear a similarity to the facts, especially when the lies come come various sources. That itself is the very reason why the Supreme Court's decision was such a disaster and a blot on the America's judicial history.

Restore our Future: A Closer Look at Contributors to Mitt Romney’s Super PAC

©2011@nomadicview

By Nomad

When the Supreme Court handed down its historic decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission on January 21, 2010, some legal analysts and political commentators warned that it would, in effect, open the floodgates for unlimited campaign contributions from corporations. Others championed the decision as a victory for free speech.

Democratic congressman from central Florida, Alan Grayson, said that following this decision, “only huge corporations have any constitutional rights... They have the right to bribe, the right to buy elections, the right to reward their elected toadies, and the right to punish the elected representatives who take a stab at doing what's right.”

Richard Hasen, writing for Slate, put it this way:

Today the court struck down decades-old limits on corporate and union spending in elections (including judicial elections) and opened up our political system to a money free-for-all.

Another source neatly summarized the decision this way:

...the Court overturned long-standing precedent, ruling that banning corporations from using money from their general treasuries for express advocacy was an unconstitutional violation of First Amendment political free speech rights. The majority opinion also struck down the electioneering communications rule as it applies to corporations. As a result, corporations and unions may now spend as much as they want on independent expenditures, in a way that could help the candidate of their choice, right up until Election Day.

As the presidential election of 2012 looms, all of us will be able to watch with our own eyes the impact of this decision. Even now the signs are ominous. Let’s take a closer look at one candidate, Mitt Romney, examining his source of campaign funding and a few of his top name contributors.