IRS targeted conservatives in 2012

[Mark]

Tax-exempt status is accorded specifically to organizations that are not engaged in political opinion.

Period.

The Ayn Rand Institute is above that sort of thing. See its Op-Ed publshed on the eve of the 2000 presidential election:

"America’s Real Choice"

(November 6, 2000)

After weighing Bush vs Gore the article concludes:

... in a contest against Al Gore and his myriad proposals for expansion of government, Bush does represent more freedom from government controls. A Gore victory would be a moral mandate for more government intrusion in our lives; a Bush victory will represent a moral mandate for protecting us from government power.

For that reason alone, I’ll be voting for Bush tomorrow. I’ll be voting, not so much for the man, but for the anti-big-government stance that he represents.

Weeks before this one ARI published an Op-Ed entitled something like "Gore evil, Bush good" with the theme that the election was not a choice between two evils but between good and evil. Unfortunately it didn't get archived by the Internet Wayback Machine and, like the above, it quicky disappeared from ARI's website.

[Selene]

Mark:

Are you in agreement with the 2010 decision, within the context of this Constitutionally limited Republic, as created way back when?

Secondly, do you believe that the First Amendment protects speech, as stated by the deciding vote cast by Justice Kennedy?

A...

[Mark]

These aren’t questions. How should I reply? We need a Ministry of Truth headed by El Presidente. If for our own good the government regulates what drugs we can take, all the more ought it regulate what articles we can read. As John A. Hobson put it in 1920: Dips into the Near Future (written near the end of W.W. I): "we are all put upon war-bread, why not upon war-truth?"

The 1920 pamphlet was satire, and the above is sarcasm. There are two other questions we should ask instead of Selene's. Background: The point of being a non-profit corporation is to get tax and other advantages.

1. Is one of the legal restrictions on non-profit corporations that they never explicitly promote a political candidate?

2. Is that restriction a good law?

The answer to the first is Yes. From Nolo:

In order to maintain tax-exempt status, 501©(3) nonprofit organizations cannot engage in political campaigning. ...

... A 501©(3) organization is absolutely forbidden to directly or indirectly participate in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. ...

...

... If your organization takes a stand in any campaign, supporting or opposing one or another candidate, this violates the prohibition.

Non-profits are allowed to talk about the issues of the campaign, which might implicitly promote one of the candidates, but they’re restricted from explicitly promoting him. If they violate this restriction they’re supposed to lose their non-profit status.

Regarding hit-and-run articles like ARI’s it’s pretty much a scofflaw. Again from Nolo;

... Although the IRS has the power to revoke your tax-exempt status, it typically uses this punishment only in the most egregious cases. More likely, the IRS will ask your organization to correct the violation and implement procedures to make sure the violation will not occur again. If the organization’s funds were used to engage in the prohibited activity, the IRS may also impose excise taxes.

The second question is complicated. At first glance a libertarian-type would answer No, it’s not a good law, it’s one more restriction on freedom. That however neglects the full picture. The non-profit gets tax breaks that a for-profit doesn’t. The libertarian viewpoint might be that there should be no taxes for anyone, or only a small fee "tax," and in any event all corporations should be treated equally, then there would be no such thing as a non-profit, and the question just goes away for lack of referents.

But for the time being there are taxes and there are non-profits. Taking that for granted, is the law good? In return for the advantages should non-profits be restricted from promoting political candidates?

Again, at first glance I’d say No. But the promotion of leftist causes by many -- at times it seems almost all -- big money donors, as opposed to many small contributions as in the Ron Paul "money bombs," makes me reconsider. In any case, scrapping all restrictions would be better than the current campaign finance laws, also known as the incumbent protection laws.

[Selene]

Mark:

I am opposed, unilaterally, to any tax free, or, tax deductible corporate structures.

My partner and I mulled over this issue when we were formulating the structure of F.A.M.I.L.Y., Advocates, which was a gender neutral intercession organization that assertively pushed the Supreme and Family Court system in NY State.

Thankfully, we chose to make it a membership organization and that kept the state out of our financial pants.

As we became more effective, the DA's office of Nassau County sent us a subpoena for our financial records and membership lists, [sound familiar], and my partner and I had a wonderful conversation with a female ADA, wherein she basically became incoherent to discover that we were not a 501 organization.

My partner explained that our office was having lunch with the money that they sent for our records and that they could basically go fuck themselves because we had no requirement to give them a damn document.

She, became, apoplectic, and started to stutter and said, "How can you run your organization like that?" Our answer, with a twinkle in our phone conversation eyes was, "With the good will and support of our membership." Essentially, a fuck you go away answer..

A...

[moralist]

Mark:

I am opposed, unilaterally, to any tax free, or, tax deductible corporate structures.

My partner and I mulled over this issue when we were formulating the structure of F.A.M.I.L.Y., Advocates, which was a gender neutral intercession organization that assertively pushed the Supreme and Family Court system in NY State.

Thankfully, we chose to make it a membership organization and that kept the state our of our financial pants.

As we became more effective, the DA's office of Nassau County sent us a subpoena for our financial records and membership lists, [sound familiar], and my partner and I had a wonderful conversation with a female ADA, wherein she basically became incoherent to discover that we were not a 501 organization.

My partner explained that our office was having lunch with the money that they sent for our records and that they could basically go fuck themselves because we had no requirement to give them a damn document.

She, became, apoplectic, and started to stutter and said, "How can you run your organization like that?" Our answer, with a twinkle in our phone conversation eyes was, "With the good will and support of our membership." Essentially, a fuck you go away answer..

A...

I loved reading your fu story...

I wanted our local Tea Party Patriots to remain a taxable organization so that we would retain our freedom. The moment the board went groveling to the government for the something-for-nothing entitlement of favored status, that act granted the government "the sanction of the victim" to exercise its control over the group. Now the group is embroiled in a national lawsuit and one of our board members is testifying in front of the Ways and Means Committee in Washington DC. Marching in Victims on Parade is so damned demeaning... as well as un-American.

My suggestion was to be honest and change the name from Tea Party to Pity Party.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Get a load of this:

WOULD YOU BELIEVE WIFE OF FORMER IRS HEAD IS AN EXEC AT LEFT-WING POLITICAL ACTION GROUP?
by Dave Urbanski
Jun. 1, 2013
TheBlaze

From the article:

Former Internal Revenue Service commissioner Douglas H. Shulman, a frequent White House visitor when the IRS was targeting conservative nonprofits, is married to an executive with Public Campaign, an unabashed left-wing organization “dedicated to sweeping campaign reform that aims to dramatically reduce the role of big special interest money in American politics.”

The IRS is being investigated for delaying the tax-exempt nonprofit status of conservative organizations. In the midst of this scandal, a number of groups have defended the IRS, The Daily Caller reported, adding that “one of those defenders” is Public Campaign.

Shulman’s wife Susan L. Anderson is the Washington-based nonprofit’s senior program advisor.

There's a lot of dirt on Public Campaign in the article on TheBlaze and quotes from The Daily Caller, but they also give this YouTube video.

I think it's a great introduction to the lifework of Shulman's wife.

http://youtu.be/8e9e1-DEQi4

I just hope these fine folks will not be the scapegoats to get Obama off the hook.

Michael

EDIT: At least the IRS agents are having a ball: IRS TURNS OVER REALLY EMBARRASSING VIDEO…

If you want to see how IRS agents dance, you can watch them get down on a groovy-groove boogie paid for by the USA taxpayer (sorry, the video doesn't embed): See here.

[Robert Baratheon]

Mark:

I am opposed, unilaterally, to any tax free, or, tax deductible corporate structures.

My partner and I mulled over this issue when we were formulating the structure of F.A.M.I.L.Y., Advocates, which was a gender neutral intercession organization that assertively pushed the Supreme and Family Court system in NY State.

Thankfully, we chose to make it a membership organization and that kept the state our of our financial pants.

As we became more effective, the DA's office of Nassau County sent us a subpoena for our financial records and membership lists, [sound familiar], and my partner and I had a wonderful conversation with a female ADA, wherein she basically became incoherent to discover that we were not a 501 organization.

My partner explained that our office was having lunch with the money that they sent for our records and that they could basically go fuck themselves because we had no requirement to give them a damn document.

She, became, apoplectic, and started to stutter and said, "How can you run your organization like that?" Our answer, with a twinkle in our phone conversation eyes was, "With the good will and support of our membership." Essentially, a fuck you go away answer..

A...

In my final year of law school, I was applying for prosecutor positions and came across the Nassau County District Attorney's website. I downloaded their employment application and filled out all the standard fields, but at the end of the application there was an unusual section entitled "Gun Ownership." This section required that all applicants sign a statement that ADAs are prohibited from owning a handgun without the express written permission of Lunatic-Control-Freak DA Kathleen Rice, who I understand ran unsuccessfully for New York Attorney General in 2010, The application is still up on their website today (http://www.nassaucountyny.gov/agencies/DA/documents/ADAapplicant2013.pdf).

I wrote Ms. Rice a letter informing her that her handgun policy is patently unconstitutional and morally repulsive, and I would not be applying to her office solely for that reason. I never did receive a response.

[Selene]

Excellent additional posts by Robert and Greg.

We have control of ourselves and our decisions.

Under no circumstances should we ever accept any tax deductible status from the state, nor, should we ever donate to any tax deductible organization.

It is inherently hypocritical to have other taxpayers pay the freight for our organization.

Bravo boys!

A...

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here is a beautiful statement by Becky Gerritson (of the Wetumpka Tea Party in Alabama) to the Ways and Means Committee:

Just beautiful...

Michael

[Selene]

Here is a beautiful statement by Becky Gerritson (of the Wetumpka Tea Party in Alabama) to the Ways and Means Committee:

Just beautiful...

Michael

Powerfully beautiful...I am proud to be on the same moral team as this lady...

"I am not a serf, or, a vassal!" <<<< phenomenal statement her use of those two [2] nouns are clear and dramatic...they call up a pre-Constitutional period wherein this was the only relationship between the individual and the state.

"I'm not begging my Lord for mercy!" <<<<again stating the obvious, that she is a free citizen of a Constitutionally limited government..

"I'm a born free American woman, wife, mother and citizen!" <<<<perfect declaring her moral status as a citizen...

"And, [nice pause word] I am telling my government that you've forgotten your place!"

"It''s not your responsibility to look out for my well being, and to monitor my speech!"

"It's not your right to assert an agenda!"

"The 'post' that you occupy exists to ensure American liberty!"

You've sworn to uphold that duty, and, you've faltered."

One of the most moving statements that I have heard in decades...

A...

[moralist]

That was a beautiful moment which will reverberate like a liberty bell.

And even though she had given the government her sanction to become its victim by seeking to be granted an entitled status, what the government did was still wrong.

These events are revealing the true nature of government as well as the nature of the people who created it in their own image.

[BaalChatzaf]

We hates the government and we wants to kill it, Precious ---- Golum

[moralist]

We hates the government and we wants to kill it, Precious ---- Golum

My approach is to remove the government from my own life by learning how to live without needing what it only appears to offer.