Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Email: IRS’s Lerner, Treasury Dept. secretly drafted new rules to restrict nonprofits

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Email: IRS’s Lerner, Treasury Dept. secretly drafted new rules to restrict nonprofits

    Email: IRS’s Lerner, Treasury Department secretly drafted new rules to restrict nonprofits
    2:10 PM 02/05/2014

    The Obama administration’s Treasury Department and former IRS official Lois Lerner conspired to draft new 501(c)(4) regulations to restrict the activity of conservative groups in a way that would not be disclosed publicly, according to the House Committee on Ways and Means.

    The Treasury Department and Lerner started devising the new rules “off-plan,” meaning that their plans would not be published on the public schedule. They planned the new rules in 2012, while the IRS targeting of conservative groups was in full swing, and not after the scandal broke in order to clarify regulations as the administration has suggested.

    The rules place would place much more stringent controls on what would be considered political activity by the IRS, effectively limiting the standard practices of a wide array of non-profit groups.


    “Don’t know who in your organizations is keeping tabs on c4s, but since we mentioned potentially addressing them (off -plan) in 2013, I’ve got my radar up and this seemed interesting…,” Treasury official Ruth Madrigal wrote in a June 14, 2012 email to Lerner and others obtained by Ways and Means and provided to The Daily Caller.

    Ways and Means chairman Rep. Dave Camp blasted the off-the-record plan during a hearing Wednesday with IRS commissioner John Koskinen, and called for the administration’s newly proposed 501(c)(4) rules to be halted until criminal investigations into the IRS targeting scandal are complete.

    “If Treasury and the IRS fabricated the rationale for a rule change it would tend to raise questions about the integrity of the rule-making process,” Camp said.

    “I want to be perfectly clear – this committee will fight any and all efforts to restrict the rights of groups to organize, speak out and educate the public, just as unions are allowed to do so. We will get to the bottom of this, and I expect the IRS to produce – quickly – the outstanding documents the committee has requested,” Camp said.

    “I believe the IRS has a long way to go in restoring its credibility. But, you can take a first step by complying with this committee’s request and stopping all action against 501(c)(4) groups until the appropriate investigations are completed.”


    The new rules define more previously acceptable activities by nonprofit groups as prohibited “candidate-related political activity.” Communications and activities including voter registration drives and publishing voter guides, among others, are now classified as political activity. Grants and donations that 501(c)(4)’s give to other nonprofits are now subject to new record-keeping and increased scrutiny to prevent the money’s use for broadly-defined political activity.

    The rules were “drafted in a manner, in my view, to shut down tea party groups” Rep. Camp said earlier this week.

    New IRS commissioner Koskinen said that the rules should “put to rest all of the issues surrounding applications for tax-exempt status.”

    But Madrigal’s email to Lerner proves that the regulations were being developed long before the IRS needed to publicly put anything “to rest.”

    At least 292 conservative groups were subjected to unfair targeting between 2010 and 2012, against six liberal groups that were allegedly given similar treatment.

    “They are both over-broad and under-inclusive,” said Foley & Lardner LLP partner Cleta Mitchell on the new rules.

    “They’ve taken everything that 501(c)(4) organizations do in the normal course of business and proposed to convert that all to candidate-related activity, even if a candidate is never mentioned.”

    Mitchell said that the rules are being “rushed through” for political purposes.

    “The objective is to get the rules in place before the 2014 election,” Mitchell said.


    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/05/em...#ixzz2sVPSn1qK
    "Alexa, slaughter the fatted calf."

  • #2
    BENGHAZI!! Just thought I'd beat Bok to it.
    If it pays, it stays

    Comment


    • #3
      .....
      The new rules define more previously acceptable activities by nonprofit groups as prohibited “candidate-related political activity.” Communications and activities including voter registration drives and publishing voter guides, among others, are now classified as political activity. Grants and donations that 501(c)(4)’s give to other nonprofits are now subject to new record-keeping and increased scrutiny to prevent the money’s use for broadly-defined political activity.

      ...

      “They’ve taken everything that 501(c)(4) organizations do in the normal course of business and proposed to convert that all to candidate-related activity, even if a candidate is never mentioned.”
      The left never finds a problem when the Teamsters, AFLCIO, NEA or any number of unions do any, all and more than this.

      They endorse candidates, financially support candidates and send out ballot facsimiles that identify the correct candidates to vote for.
      Robert Francis O'Rourke, Democrat, White guy, spent ~78 million to defeat, Ted Cruz, Republican immigrant Dark guy …
      and lost …
      But the Republicans are racist.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Gramps View Post
        The left never finds a problem when the Teamsters, AFLCIO, NEA or any number of unions do any, all and more than this.

        They endorse candidates, financially support candidates and send out ballot facsimiles that identify the correct candidates to vote for.
        That's not political.
        "Faith is nothing but a firm assent of the mind : which, if it be regulated, as is our duty, cannot be afforded to anything but upon good reason, and so cannot be opposite to it."
        -John Locke

        "It's all been melded together into one giant, authoritarian, leftist scream."
        -Newman

        Comment


        • #5
          There is a difference between campaigning for your rights and campaigning against someone else's rights.
          The year's at the spring
          And day's at the morn;
          Morning's at seven;
          The hill-side's dew-pearled;
          The lark's on the wing;
          The snail's on the thorn:
          God's in his heaven—
          All's right with the world!

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Novaheart View Post
            There is a difference between campaigning for your rights and campaigning against someone else's rights.
            I suppose that depends on which end of the umbilical cord the person is.
            "Faith is nothing but a firm assent of the mind : which, if it be regulated, as is our duty, cannot be afforded to anything but upon good reason, and so cannot be opposite to it."
            -John Locke

            "It's all been melded together into one giant, authoritarian, leftist scream."
            -Newman

            Comment


            • #7
              So, it turns out that there was, in fact, a shit-ton more than a "smidgen" of corruption, that in fact, as was suspected all along, this was a planned, coordinated attack upon those whose political views do not align with the President's.

              Everyone act surprised!


              And now the media will go plug their ears and shout "LALALALALALALALA" in order to avoid the facts and protect the lord and savior. I wonder who will throw themselves on the grenade first. I'm kinda thinking it's Chuck Todd's turn.
              It's been ten years since that lonely day I left you
              In the morning rain, smoking gun in hand
              Ten lonely years but how my heart, it still remembers
              Pray for me, momma, I'm a gypsy now

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Novaheart View Post
                There is a difference between campaigning for your rights and campaigning against someone else's rights.
                Explain that.

                I have been a member of 5 unions in my life.
                Every fucking one of them used my dues to support candidates that I would not vote for.

                That is political as shit, yet they get a pass?
                Robert Francis O'Rourke, Democrat, White guy, spent ~78 million to defeat, Ted Cruz, Republican immigrant Dark guy …
                and lost …
                But the Republicans are racist.

                Comment

                Working...
                X
                😀
                🥰
                🤢
                😎
                😡
                👍
                👎