the IRS and AP Scandals

[mikoyan29]

I'm not really sure about the IRS one based on all the other stuff I've heard related to it. Number one being the onrush of applications to fall under that variety of tax exempt, so I can imagine that the IRS would have wanted a way to sort through the applications to give certain groups a little more scrutiny. What's really funny is that the groups that ended up losing their tax exempt status was one of the liberal groups. I don't really believe that it was a directive from Obama given who the head of the IRS was, so I don't think that particular dog will hunt. What I am sure about is how this is being used to cloud who the money behind certain groups are. If the Koch Brothers or Soros or whoever want to throw their money at the poltical process, I don't really care but I would like to see what advertisements they are behind and what not. To me that helps in my decision making.

As for the AP thing, I think the bigger scandal is the fact that it was probably entirely legal. It just shows how far our rights have eroded as a result of the various wars on whatever.

[bara]

I say make it simple, only charities get tax exempt status. And even then if they are donating to political causes then they lose that status at least for that fiscal year. (Oh yeah, churches need to pay taxes too)

I would also like to remove the clause that says you dont have to tell who donated. I havent been following the AP thing enough to comment. I would like to see the media turn into what it is supposed to be, the people's voice against oppression.

[Kheldarson]

I've been seeing more on the AP thing than the IRS thing.

Most recent was a journalist was investigated (possibly charged?) as being a co-conspirator for having e-mails from a leak. So while it's covered legally, there's also the question of whistle-blower laws.

If you can't report safely because the other end can get grabbed, who can you report to?

[Aethian]

I honestly don't think Onama should be blamed for the IRS doings. That is why we have a Sec of the Treasury who should be getting grilled as to why this wasn't found earlier.

[Gravekeeper]

I honestly don't think Onama should be blamed for the IRS doings. That is why we have a Sec of the Treasury who should be getting grilled as to why this wasn't found earlier.

Yes, but everything is Obama's fault and 10 times worse than Watergate apparently. Though I do find it funny that Obama's poll numbers went *up* as a result of all this lunacy.

[AmbrosiaWriter]

Yes, but everything is Obama's fault and 10 times worse than Watergate apparently. Though I do find it funny that Obama's poll numbers went *up* as a result of all this lunacy.

You just reminded me...

A local paper called this entire situation "Obamagate." I nearly slammed my head through a wall when I read that.

[mikoyan29]

I've been seeing more on the AP thing than the IRS thing.

Most recent was a journalist was investigated (possibly charged?) as being a co-conspirator for having e-mails from a leak. So while it's covered legally, there's also the question of whistle-blower laws.

If you can't report safely because the other end can get grabbed, who can you report to?

The problem with leaks is that they are a double edged sword. Sometimes they are created by someone with an axe to grind. Sometimes they release serious classified information. so I don't know.

LIke I said, I think the bigger scandal here is just what the Government can get away with. But I'm not entirely sure the Republicans want to approach that subject very carefully since they gleefully passed many of the things that are being used here. Which is interesting because there were groups that basically said, "Be careful what you pass here...."

[Jaden]

I say make it simple, only charities get tax exempt status. And even then if they are donating to political causes then they lose that status at least for that fiscal year. (Oh yeah, churches need to pay taxes too)

You do realize that churches are, in fact, responsible for a large percentage of charity, right? There are a lot of churches that almost are nothing but charities, not to mention that in many denominations churches strive to meet certain charitable goals.

[Hyena Dandy]

You just reminded me...

A local paper called this entire situation "Obamagate." I nearly slammed my head through a wall when I read that.

That's not how -gate works.

I mean, I hate things being labeled 'gate' but even if I AM labeling this, that's not how that works!

Edit: It's... Taxgate. Or APgate. Not Obamagate.

The 'gate' comes after what the scandal's ABOUT. The only way it'd be Obamagate would be if it turned out that someone was secretly Obama.

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

Though I do find it funny that Obama's poll numbers went *up* as a result of all this lunacy.

What, the Clinton bounce? Unless you can prove malfeasance, the public tends to have more sympathy for the person they view as persecuted politically. It doesn't mean they're right, but no one's going to cut the Republicans slack for being interested in justice when they executed this playbook a whole whopping 1 Democratic president ago. This is a repeat.

Really, the political winner would probably be to float a bill that outlaws or seeks to address what the White House was doing with the AP in the first place. It doesn't even need to pass, but it would play better.

[mikoyan29]

I would have more support for these if the Republicans actually seemed interested in improving the convoluted rules for tax exemption or were willing to look at aspects related to the AP case but they are only interested in a witch hunt.

I guess an even more interesting part of the IRS thing is that they knew about it back in June.

[Panacea]

I say make it simple, only charities get tax exempt status. And even then if they are donating to political causes then they lose that status at least for that fiscal year. (Oh yeah, churches need to pay taxes too)

It depends on what kind of charity. 501(C)3 charities are things like churches and similar charities. They are tax exempt and forbidden from politics. They weren't at issue in this case.

What's at issue are 501(c)4 charities; they are non profits to promote "social welfare", and are usually small mom and pop organizations. They are not tax exempt, but usually aren't subject to income tax because they don't make enough. However, they do not have to disclose their donors. That's why tea party groups and other political advocacy groups (some liberal) like them; they can participate in politics (but not as their primary purpose), but don't have to reveal their donors.

They actually don't have to get approval; they can self declare. But they could get hit with a big tax bill if they don't get approval and are found to openly political organizations.

527 organizations are openly politically partisan, but have to disclose their donors.

I honestly don't think Onama should be blamed for the IRS doings. That is why we have a Sec of the Treasury who should be getting grilled as to why this wasn't found earlier.

We can't blame Obama for this. Federal law prohibits Obama from talking to the head of the IRS just for this reason. He has to go through the Secretary of the Treasury, who CAN talk to the IRS. There is NO evidence that anyone in the Obama administration directed or even hinted at what a few employees of one division in Cinncinatti did. It was pure laziness, nothing else. Everything else is just posturing and obfuscation.

Yes, but everything is Obama's fault and 10 times worse than Watergate apparently. Though I do find it funny that Obama's poll numbers went *up* as a result of all this lunacy.

They went from 51% to 53% approval, still within the margin of error; effectively his approval rating is unchanged. In spite of that most Americans are very concerned about the IRS scandal and unhappy with what the IRS did.

I'm one of them. I don't blame Obama, I'm pissed at the IRS for creating this problem, and even more pissed at Congress who could solve the whole damn problem by amending the law and requiring 501(c)4 organizations to disclose their donors.

[Nekojin]

From what I've heard about the so-called IRS "scandal," I'm not sure that they actually did anything wrong. They noticed a pattern (namely, that there was a large surge in filings for that status, and they noticed that a large number of the bad filings that they were getting were "Tea Party" groups), and followed it. While it looked from the outside that they were trying to discredit Tea Partiers, it was the other way around - the Tea Party groups were jumping on a special status bandwagon that they didn't have a right to claim.

[Andara Bledin]

They went from 51% to 53% approval, still within the margin of error; effectively his approval rating is unchanged. In spite of that most Americans are very concerned about the IRS scandal and unhappy with what the IRS did.

This is mostly true. Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight did an article about that very thing and found that the issue actually depressed his approval ratings by a couple of percentage points, but because the economy had had a greater upward effect, it's making it seem like people either don't care, or are giving him more benefit than they actually are.

Article at FiveThirtyEight

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

Well that's probably absolutely true along with what happened with Clinton as well. There's a certain point where accusations aren't going to trump American's wallets. Now actually proving something would be a different story.