Chuck Schumer Calls on IRS to Crack Down on Tea Party Funding

echelon1k1

echelon1k1

New Member
Red1966 said:
You have proven a point, but not the one you think. You have proven that it is possible to remain willfully ignorant by limiting your sources of information to those that only tell you what you want to hear. Your eager acceptance of a letter as if it was a transcript of the speech without any evidence at all shows you don't have the ability to make decisions based on facts, but rely solely on what you want to believe. You are such a sad example of femininity, I suspect you are just another sock puppet created by BuckHead to populate his cheering gallery. You surely couldn't pass as a female who anyone could admire. Your children, if you actually had any, would despise the mother who abandoned them so she could pursue her lofty career of collecting food stamps and unemployment.
Click to expand...
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Red1966 again.
 
Red1966

Red1966

Well-Known Member
ChesusRice said:
Why not just go to the source? http://www.schumer.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=336270& Hon. Douglas H. Shulman Commissioner Internal Revenue Service Room 3000 IR 1111 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Dear Commissioner Shulman: We write to ask the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) to immediately change the administrative framework for enforcement of the tax code as it applies to groups designated as “social welfare” organizations. These groups receive tax and other advantages under section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code (hereinafter, “IRC” or the “Code”), but some of them also are engaged in a substantial amount of political campaign activity. As you know, we sent a letter last month expressing concerns about the 501(c)(4) issue; an investigation this week by the New York Times has uncovered new, specific problems on how c)4)s conduct business. We wanted to address those new concerns in this letter. IRS regulations have long maintained that political campaign activity by a 501(c)(4) entity must not be the “primary purpose” of the organization. These regulations are intended to implement the statute, which requires that such organizations be operated exclusively for the public welfare. But we think the existing IRS regulations run afoul of the law since they only require social welfare activities to be the 'primary purpose' of a nonprofit when the Code says this must be its 'exclusive' purpose. In recent years, this daylight between the law and the IRS regulations has been exploited by groups devoted chiefly to political election activities who operate behind a facade of charity work. A related concern, raised in a March 7[SUP]th [/SUP]New York Times article, concerns whether certain nonprofits may be soliciting corporate contributions that are then treated by the company as a business expense eligible for a tax deduction. The Times wrote: “Under current law, there is little to no way to tell whether contributions are being deducted, especially because many of the most political companies are privately held.” This potential abuse distorts the objectives of vital revenue mechanisms and undermines the faith that we ask citizens to place in their electoral system. We propose that the IRS make three administrative changes to curtail these questionable practices and bring IRS tax regulations back into alignment with the letter and spirit intended by those who crafted the Code: · First, we urge the IRS to adopt a bright line test in applying its “primary purpose” regulation that is consistent with the Code’s 501(c)(4) exclusivity language. The IRS currently only requires that the purpose of these non-profits be “primarily” related to social welfare activities, without defining what “primarily” means. This standard should be spelled out more fully by the IRS. Some have suggested 51 percent as an appropriate threshold for establishing that a nonprofit is adhering to its mission, but even this number would seem to allow for more political election activity than should be permitted under the law. In the absence of clarity in the administration of section 501(c)(4), organizations are tempted to abuse its vagueness, or worse, to organize under section 501(c)(4) so that they may avail themselves of its advantages even though they are not legitimate social welfare organizations. If the IRS does not adopt a bright line test, or if it adopts one that is inconsistent with the Code’s exclusivity language, then we plan to pursue legislation codifying such a test. · Second, such organizations should be further obligated to document in their 990 IRS form the exact percentage of their undertakings dedicated to “social welfare.” Organizations should be required to “show their math” to demonstrate that political election activities and other statutorily limited or prohibited activities do not violate the “primary purpose” regulation. · Third, 501(c)(4) organizations should be required to state forthrightly to potential donors what percentage of a donation, if any, may be taken as a business expense deduction. As the New York Times reported in its March 7[SUP]th[/SUP]article, some of these organizations do not currently inform donors whether a contribution is tax deductible as a business expense at all. The IRS should already possess the authority to issue immediate guidance on this matter. We urge the IRS to take these steps immediately to prevent abuse of the tax code by political groups focused on federal election activities. But if the IRS is unable to issue administrative guidance in this area then we plan to introduce legislation to accomplish these important changes. Sincerely, Senators Charles E. Schumer, Michael Bennet, Sheldon Whitehouse, Jeff Merkley, Tom Udall, Jeanne Shaheen and Al Franken
Click to expand...
That wasn't the source. Pretending he recited the contents of a letter after SEEING AND HEARING a completely different speach is just dishonest. How can you pretend you have some moral high ground while consistently lying about the actions of your leaders? Oh, that's right, you're a lying bastard intent on forcing your will upon others. Sadly, the causes you champion will fuck you just as much as everyone else.
 
Red1966

Red1966

Well-Known Member
schuylaar said:
i'm right here..let me ask you this..in your world, does 1+1=2?
Click to expand...
That's a pretty idiotic reply. Why don't you address the video tape just posted that you claimed you wanted to see? You were just shown that Schumer did indeed propose that the IRS be used as a weapon against conservatives. Now you want to discus math? You are morally bankrupt.
 
Red1966

Red1966

Well-Known Member
schuylaar said:
you're fail..because i asked for the vid over and over..and was TOLD it was here by red..which was a lie..anti get the vid..i posted word for word and commented..now the ball is in your court..FYI..this is how debate works..
Click to expand...
Fail? You were beaten to a pulp! You can't possibly be so stupid as to think there is something left to debate, so I can only deduce that you are just a liar.
 
Red1966

Red1966

Well-Known Member
El Tiberon said:
501(c)4 applies to all non-profits correct? What's the big problem?
Click to expand...
The problem is it doesn't apply to all non-profits as it is being enforced. That law is being used to delay conservatives that status indefinitely by demanding an endless series of responses to what are clearly asinine and sometime illegal questions while not asking the same of groups considered friendly to the Democrats.
 
C

ChesusRice

Well-Known Member
Red1966 said:
The problem is it doesn't apply to all non-profits as it is being enforced. That law is being used to delay conservatives that status indefinitely by demanding an endless series of responses to what are clearly asinine and sometime illegal questions while not asking the same of groups considered friendly to the Democrats.
Click to expand...
Been there
Done that

Your wrong
erroneous
Or lying
 
S

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
Red1966

Red1966

Well-Known Member
ChesusRice said:
Been there Done that Your wrong erroneous Or lying
Click to expand...
So the IRS admitting to doing the exact thing was just a lie? So Obama pretending to investigate the matter was a lie? Well, that was a lie, as he appointed a party operative to investigate it. So the video of Schumer demanding even more of the exact same thing was a lie? Me thinks you accuse others of your own transgressions.
 
Red1966

Red1966

Well-Known Member
B

beenthere

New Member
cannabineer said:
Technically not a strawman but the old argumentum ad hominem.

Most folks think that the ad hom is to deflect the argument onto personal insult. This is not so; it is actually a matter of dismissing the argument by dismissing the source. This is dangerous, since even the most distasteful sources get some things right some of the time
.
n.b. i am making no claims that this source got that right.
Click to expand...
UncleBuck said:
theblaze discredits itself and is the strawman.

the letter to the IRS is what's important.

you are my own personal jester.
Click to expand...
Clearly, UncleBuck's letter is the straw man in our argument, he just cannot bring himself to admit he got this one wrong.

The OP is about (D) Senator Chuck Schumer speaking in front of the (Soros funded) Center for American Progress.
Senator Schumer is suggesting the Obama administration should use the powers of the IRS to rein in the funding and power of Tea Party elites. A video of senator Schumer was posted, his own words substantiates the OP.

Below is an excerpt from the Blaze article that was used for the OP.

Schumer during remarks to the Center for American Progress argued that Tea Party groups have an unfair financial advantage over left-leaning groups because of the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision, at one point even suggesting that President Barack Obama go around Congress to impose stricter campaign finance laws.
 
C

ChesusRice

Well-Known Member
Red1966 said:
"according to internal IRS documents released by Democrats " No bias there. Yet the IRS has admitted to doing exactly what Schumer is demanding more of. Your original argument was Schumer never made those statements. It has been irrefutably proven he did make those statements. Now you want to pretend the argument is about something else? Fail
Click to expand...
Never mind

No help for you. Stop being dishonest
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top