Oh, that's rich coming from you.
http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=35294158&postcount=16
You sound like one of the butthurt Trayvon supporters that believes his biased theory was right over the non-biased facts.
The problem with the OP and his ilk is that they have (biased) theories in search of (biased) facts.
Its a good thing we don't do science that way.
Go back to the "Primary Purpose" reference in fig 1 of the report. "Primary Purpose" is defined by % of expenditures, as I offered.Originally Posted by Bowfinger
I know what's he's saying; it's just not what the IG report states. The report states 501(c)(4)s are permitted to engage in unlimited lobbying and general advocacy, as long as such activities are consistent with the purpose of the organization. The restriction is on "political campaign intervention." While I think one could raise legitimate questions about whether this truly serves the public interest, that's a separate issue. Unless someone with greater expertise steps forward, I'm inclined to accept the IG's interpretation of what current law specifies.
It can be no other way.
1. There is no evidence this is limited to just 6 progressive groups, unless you have access to the full list of documents collected by the House oversight committee.
2. Even if there's a disproportionate focus on conservative groups, there's little doubt among clear thinkers that there were more of these conservative groups in existence anyway.
I'm thinking it's going to be a while...perhaps sometime after November, 2014.At this point what "there is no evidence of" is liberal groups being subjected to the ' new and special' inappropriate process the conservative groups were. There is the 'normal' (and far less intrusive etc) process that has long existed. I.e., the liberal groups may have been questioned in the normal process. We need to know much more detail. It may be that they merely filled out their application incompletely or with errors.
If the IRS would only submit the list of those groups chosen for the new and special inappropriate process we would know how many liberal groups got caught up in it. This has been dragging on for months now. How f'ing long does it take to assemble the damn list?
Fern
Agreed. The longer they can delay producing the list the more time they have to justify it and the less likely they'll ever have to produce it. If the Dems take the House and hold the Senate, this investigation is over. It'll just be a bunch of stuff that happened.I'm thinking it's going to be a while...perhaps sometime after November, 2014.
Agreed. The longer they can delay producing the list the more time they have to justify it and the less likely they'll ever have to produce it. If the Dems take the House and hold the Senate, this investigation is over. It'll just be a bunch of stuff that happened.
-snip-
No.
Please see Form 990 and its Schedule B, which are required for 501 c3's.
The general rule is that any single person giving $5,000 or more in a single year must be listed (name, address etc., but no SS#) along with the amount of their donation(s).
These forms are required by law to be made available to the public upon request.
Fern
Um, you DO know the Dems took the House in 2008, right?The democrats taking the house back is very unlikely thanks to gerrymandering. The right doesn't fear the people but rather they fear being primaried by someone more extreme than they are while the left just has to play it safe.
Nothing will change until the baby boomers die and go away.
We'll see. D.C. is so politicized that I remain skeptical any Democrats will do anything politically damaging to Obama even if it becomes clear he orchestrated the whole thing. My guess is the House investigation will concentrate on damaging Obama and the Senate investigation will concentrate on negating the House investigation.I'm hearing the Senate Finance committee is doing their own investigation of the IRS. It's lead by Baucus, a Democrat.
What I've heard, which should be considered unconfirmed at this point, is that he's said there's to going to be some big revelations against the IRS. While I don't know what he means, it doesn't sound good for the IRS. I've heard the Senate committee will be making announcements about this in the next 4-6 weeks.
We'll see.
Fern
Um, you DO know the Dems took the House in 2008, right?
We'll see. D.C. is so politicized that I remain skeptical any Democrats will do anything politically damaging to Obama even if it becomes clear he orchestrated the whole thing. My guess is the House investigation will concentrate on damaging Obama and the Senate investigation will concentrate on negating the House investigation.
Um you do know they lost in 2010 right? And you know the 2010 census allowed for redistributing in a lot of states, right?
Link & quote the part about the information being made available to the public on request.
None of the rest of it contradicts what I offered in the slightest.
Thanks. Unless I'm misreading this, Fern is mistaken. From that document:
So, section 527 organizations must publicly disclose large contributors, but other organizations, e.g. 501(c)(3)s, do not. Also:• Schedule B is open to public inspection for a section 527 political organization that files Form 990 or 990-EZ.
• For all other organizations that file Form 990 or 990-EZ, the names and addresses of contributors are not required to be made available for public inspection. All other information, including the amount of contributions, the description of noncash contributions, and any other information, is required to be made available for public inspection unless it clearly identifies the contributor.
In other words, one can give substantially more that $5,000 to some larger 501(c)(3)s without having the contributor reported to the IRS. Also, as I read it, no donations to 501(c)(3)s are subject to public disclosure, so donors remain anonymous. I will admit this confuses me since I thought the reason political groups flocked to 501(c)(4)s is because they uniquely preserved anonymity.Special Rules
Section 501(c)(3) organizations that file Form 990 or 990-EZ.
For an organization described in section 501(c)(3) that meets the 33 1/3% support test of the regulations under sections 509(a)(1) and 170(b)(1)(A)(vi), and not just the 10% support test (whether or not the organization is otherwise described in section 170(b)(1)(A)), list in Part I only those contributors whose contribution of $5,000 or more during the tax year is greater than 2% of the amount reported on Form 990, Part VIII, line 1h, or Form 990-EZ, line 1.
Example.
A section 501(c)(3) organization, of the type described above, reported $700,000 in total contributions, gifts, grants, and similar amounts received on Form 990, Part VIII, line 1h. The organization is only required to list in Parts I and II of its Schedule B each person who contributed more than the greater of $5,000 or 2% of $700,000 ($14,000) during the tax year. Thus, a contributor who gave a total of $11,000 would not be reported in Parts I and II for this section 501(c)(3) organization. Even though the $11,000 contribution to the organization was greater than $5,000, it did not exceed $14,000.
Thanks. Unless I'm misreading this, Fern is mistaken. From that document:
So, section 527 organizations must publicly disclose large contributors, but other organizations, e.g. 501(c)(3)s, do not. Also:In other words, one can give substantially more that $5,000 to some larger 501(c)(3)s without having the contributor reported to the IRS. Also, as I read it, no donations to 501(c)(3)s are subject to public disclosure, so donors remain anonymous. I will admit this confuses me since I thought the reason political groups flocked to 501(c)(4)s is because they uniquely preserved anonymity.
So, uhh, when you're on a long term trend of losing in the "Marketplace of Ideas", you just rig the market when you can, right?
Yes, and yes. But I hardly believe it redrew the American political landscape.Um you do know they lost in 2010 right? And you know the 2010 census allowed for redistricting in a lot of states, right?
Yes, and yes. But I hardly believe it redrew the American political landscape.
At this point what "there is no evidence of" is liberal groups being subjected to the ' new and special' inappropriate process the conservative groups were. There is the 'normal' (and far less intrusive etc) process that has long existed. I.e., the liberal groups may have been questioned in the normal process. We need to know much more detail. It may be that they merely filled out their application incompletely or with errors.
If the IRS would only submit the list of those groups chosen for the new and special inappropriate process we would know how many liberal groups got caught up in it. This has been dragging on for months now. How f'ing long does it take to assemble the damn list?
Fern
Yes, and yes. But I hardly believe it redrew the American political landscape.
Thanks. Unless I'm misreading this, Fern is mistaken.
-snip-
Thanks. Unless I'm misreading this, Fern is mistaken. From that document:
So, section 527 organizations must publicly disclose large contributors, but other organizations, e.g. 501(c)(3)s, do not. Also:In other words, one can give substantially more that $5,000 to some larger 501(c)(3)s without having the contributor reported to the IRS. Also, as I read it, no donations to 501(c)(3)s are subject to public disclosure, so donors remain anonymous. I will admit this confuses me since I thought the reason political groups flocked to 501(c)(4)s is because they uniquely preserved anonymity.
Returns must be available for a three-year period beginning with the due date of the return (including any extension of time for filing) or, if later, the date it is actually filed. For this purpose, the return includes any schedules and attachments that are filed with the form. Note, however, that an exempt organization, other than a private foundation, need not disclose the name and address of any contributor.
That was a whole lot of writing to say absolutely nothing interesting.
Btw, Obama release his birth certificate yet or what?
Makes sense (as much as tax rules ever make sense). Thanks Fern.Two things.
1. Political groups "flock" to c4's because that's the appropriate exempt vehicle for most (influence legislation etc.)
c3's are appropriate for other political groups, but only if they are involved in education etc., and they must avoid legislative activities etc that are permitted under c4.
2. Looked to me like 501 c3's who are private foundations, i.e., have a small group of large donors, MUST disclose those to the public. That would seem to prevent a large donor (or small group of large donors) from being the primary (and anonymous) funding source for 'political groups' as Jhhnn and others fear.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCwQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.irs.gov%2Fpub%2Firs-tege%2Feo_disclosure_faqs.pdf&ei=7DnwUerfMsL_rQHfxYDICA&usg=AFQjCNHQnRWtvFUi9YDo5hRpC1Ao92kzyA&bvm=bv.49641647,d.eWU
Fern
I wonder how that compares historically? Remember that up until Reagan Republicans were distinctly in the minority nationwide, and if memory serves only in the late 90s did Republicans pass Democrats in number of state legislatures controlled. And gerrymandering certainly didn't start in the late 90s.It didn't. When you combine gerrymandering with population concentration, democrats need to win something like 52% or 53% of the popular house vote to break even on seats. It isn't the end of the world and democrats can certainly win the house, but there is an undeniable institutional advantage for conservatives there.
I wonder how that compares historically? Remember that up until Reagan Republicans were distinctly in the minority nationwide, and if memory serves only in the late 90s did Republicans pass Democrats in number of state legislatures controlled. And gerrymandering certainly didn't start in the late 90s.