Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

IRS scandal implicates Democrats

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Guest


Guest


That becomes apparent from a complaint filed this month with the Senate’s ethics committee by the Center for Competitive Politics. The complaint asks the committee to investigate Sens. Carl Levin, Dick Durbin, Chuck Schumer, Al Franken, and several others for improperly trying to sway IRS deliberations and obtain confidential taxpayer information.


Admittedly, asking the Democrat-controlled committee to investigate Democrats for targeting Republican-leaning groups is a Quixotic pursuit. But Quixotic is not the same as meritless. And the complaint contains mountains of merit.


The complaint details several letters Levin wrote to the IRS in which he insisted that “a message needs to be sent” to social-welfare groups “on an urgent basis,” and that the message should make it “crystal clear” they needed to restrict their political activities. Just so the IRS would not misunderstand, he drew attention to two TV advertisements — one by Crossroads GPS and another by Patriot Majority USA.


Unsatisfied by the IRS response, Levin continued to press the agency to give such groups — which are organized under Section 501(c)(4) of the tax code — “a choice: either lose their exempt status (and pay taxes) or eliminate the partisan political activity.” He followed that up with a demand to see confidential information about Crossroads GOP, Priorities USA, Americans for Prosperity, and Patriot Majority USA. Informed that “the IRS cannot legally disclose” what he wanted, he tried again — and again. As the ethics complaint notes, “IRS Acting Commissioner Steven Miller acknowledged in an interview that Senator Levin’s effort did, in fact, have an effect on the IRS’ internal proceedings.”


Durbin not only demanded that the IRS investigate groups he didn’t care for — he boasted about it in news releases that drew the attention of the media. No wonder: Durbin made the demand a month before the fall congressional elections. Subtle!


Schumer, Franken and Co. also wrote to the IRS, wondering — purely out of idle curiosity, you understand — whether the agency “is investigating or intends to investigate” whether certain groups might be engaging in — gasp! — “campaign activity.” Which groups? Oh, “Elections operations such as Mr. (Karl) Rove’s.” They followed that up a month later with a request that the IRS change the rules governing social-welfare nonprofits.


This past January, Schumer gave a speech denouncing “the great advantage the tea party has,” namely “the huge holes in our campaign-finance system” that allowed 501(c)(4) groups to spend “millions in undisclosed dollars” on “ads that distort the truth and attack government.” To whom did he give this speech? The Center for American Progress Action Fund, a 501(c)(4) organization. Now that’s chutzpah.


But sometimes chutzpah pays off. As everyone now knows, the IRS did launch a pogrom against conservative groups — not just the big ones, like Rove’s, but many much smaller ones as well. For months it harassed them with intrusive questionnaires demanding everything from Facebook posts to the contents of prayers said at meetings.


And remember what terrible offense those groups were committing: They were supporting or opposing candidates for public office, often by buying TV ad time. But a political advertisement cannot make you vote for or against a political candidate any more than a commercial advertisement can make you buy a Toyota instead of a Ford. What Levin, Durbin, Schumer, et al. find outrageous is the fact that some Americans have been speaking about political candidates without those candidates’ authorization.


Indeed, some Democratic congressmen find that so outrageous they would like to amend the Constitution. News stories have referred to the amendment as the “Democrats’ answer to the Koch Brothers.” But the amendment would not apply only to the Kochs. It would allow politicians to ration political speech by everyone. That would be like letting Ford decide which companies get to advertise cars on TV. How many ads for Toyotas would you see in that case? Take a wild guess
http://www.timesdispatch.com/opinion/our-opinion/columnists-blogs/bart-hinkle/hinkle-irs-scandal-implicates-democrats/article_45b659b3-8d2c-55f7-9825-70df6a4cda2d.html

hm

Guest


Guest

From what I've read do far... including some emails... the politicians were extremely cautious not to mention a name.

But internal irs correspondence between dc and cincinnati could... and lerners is practically guaranteed... if we get it.

Guest


Guest

PkrBum wrote:From what I've read do far... including some emails... the politicians were extremely cautious not to mention a name.

But internal irs correspondence between dc and cincinnati could... and lerners is practically guaranteed... if we get it.

I admit I haven't been following this that close, there is just too many scandals going on for me to follow as close as I prefer and still try and maintain work and a semblance of life.

I do see on judicial watches web site they have actually released copies of letters they got thanks to the freedom of information act. Funny thing is I really havnt seen this in public media, have you?

Heres the link incase its not the same one your reading emails on.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-new-documents-show-irs-hq-control-tea-party-targeting/

and a example, levins>

For the following organizations please forward copies ofthe responses to Question #15:
1) Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies
2) Priorities U.S.A.
3) Americans for Prosperity
4) Patriot Majority USA
b. Please provide with each ans\ver the explanatory "detail" and the lists of the "amounts
spent or to be spent in each case" referred to in Question #15.
2. In the IRS response of August 24, 2012, Mr. Miller stated that an address would be needed in
order for the IRS to tell us whether or not an organization has been recognized by the IRS as
tax-exempt. I have provided address information on several organizations below, as well as
verbatim statements from these organizations' \vebsites regarding their 501 (c)(4) status.
JW1559
http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/JW1559-000901.pdf

I'm in bored lazy mode today lol so Im actually reading long boring things Probably not a good thing for the left here if I get to digging too much  Wink 

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum