Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Politico)   The Obama administration extends a big middle finger to "Citizen's United" as the IRS issues new rules that would strip tax-exempt status from 501 c(4)'s that engage in "excessive" political activity   (politico.com ) divider line
    More: Spiffy, IRS, Obama, Obama administration, master status, Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Bill Burton, chambers of commerce, democracies  
•       •       •

2115 clicks; posted to Politics » on 27 Nov 2013 at 12:49 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



166 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2013-11-27 11:59:13 AM  
Citizens United was about corporations. 501C(3) non profits are specifically not allowed to lobby. This is far, far overdue.
 
2013-11-27 12:00:37 PM  
What What said, but also Good.
 
2013-11-27 12:03:35 PM  
Good.
 
2013-11-27 12:05:02 PM  

what_now: Citizens United was about corporations. 501C(3) non profits are specifically not allowed to lobby. This is far, far overdue.


Well these are c(4)'s not (3)'s but yes the same restrictions are supposed to apply , Citizen United was actually a C4 organization however, but yes as c(3) and 4's are technically corporations the decision hinged on the right of corporate speech
 
2013-11-27 12:06:05 PM  
Define "excessive."
 
2013-11-27 12:10:35 PM  

impaler: Define "excessive."


For $450 an hour, sure, I'll be glad to.
 
2013-11-27 12:16:35 PM  

impaler: Define "excessive."


Here's 32 pages of the IRS doing just that (PDF)

but you'll be getting off cheap if you pay Rex to interpret it for you
 
2013-11-27 12:20:24 PM  
Teabaggers are gonna scream the derp.  Watch Fox News throw up a big hissy fit over this.
 
2013-11-27 12:23:00 PM  

Magorn: what_now: Citizens United was about corporations. 501C(3) non profits are specifically not allowed to lobby. This is far, far overdue.

Well these are c(4)'s not (3)'s but yes the same restrictions are supposed to apply , Citizen United was actually a C4 organization however, but yes as c(3) and 4's are technically corporations the decision hinged on the right of corporate speech


Pretty much this.
 
2013-11-27 12:23:00 PM  
i38.tinypic.com
 
2013-11-27 12:28:25 PM  
Meh, they'll just sue to have SCOTUS overturn the Administration. 'Cuz money = speech.
 
2013-11-27 12:36:18 PM  
Good. Good. Good.
 
2013-11-27 12:36:55 PM  

Stone Meadow: Meh, they'll just sue to have SCOTUS overturn the Administration. 'Cuz money = speech.


Not by the 2014 elections
 
2013-11-27 12:43:07 PM  
Good, but it kind of rings a hollow from the man that refused public campaign funds in order to spend more than any candidate before him..
 
2013-11-27 12:48:06 PM  
On it's face, it seems like a great idea.  But it also seems rather subjective.  Who will determine "excessive?"  Seems like that's going to be ripe for abuse.
 
2013-11-27 12:52:39 PM  
Except if its name is MoveOn.org
 
2013-11-27 12:53:30 PM  

vartian: Good, but it kind of rings a hollow from the man that refused public campaign funds in order to spend more than any candidate before him..




www.seoboy.com
 
2013-11-27 12:53:36 PM  

oryx: Except if its name is MoveOn.org


Derp.
 
2013-11-27 12:55:55 PM  

vartian: Good, but it kind of rings a hollow from the man that refused public campaign funds in order to spend more than any candidate before him..


Wasn't Obama outspent by Romney?
 
2013-11-27 12:57:00 PM  

slayer199: On it's face, it seems like a great idea.  But it also seems rather subjective.  Who will determine "excessive?"  Seems like that's going to be ripe for abuse.


I am sure it will be evenly applied between conservative and liberal groups. Am I right?

How about we just get rid of all these specialty tax exempt statuses in the first place? Then, the atheists will not be upset about special tax statuses for churches. Non-profits will no longer be getting tax breaks. Everyone will be on an even playing field and no one will benefit politically depending on who is in office.
 
2013-11-27 12:57:08 PM  
These new rules weren't necessary as long as the IRS could just deny tax exempt status to Obama's enemies.
 
2013-11-27 12:57:16 PM  

WI241TH: Stone Meadow: Meh, they'll just sue to have SCOTUS overturn the Administration. 'Cuz money = speech.

Not by the 2014 elections


We now know why the President had the Senate unconstitutionally destroy the long-standing filibuster rule so that he could pack the courts.

/Connect the derps.
 
2013-11-27 12:58:40 PM  

Stone Meadow: Meh, they'll just sue to have SCOTUS overturn the Administration. 'Cuz money = speech.


I got a twenty here that says you're talkin' crap.
 
2013-11-27 01:00:11 PM  

Magorn: impaler: Define "excessive."

Here's 32 pages of the IRS doing just that (PDF)

but you'll be getting off cheap if you pay Rex to interpret it for you


A 32 page document to define "excessive" is a perfect example of government in action practice.
 
2013-11-27 01:01:28 PM  
Good, because these groups have never actually promoted social welfare and should subsequently be taxed for their overt political puppetry.
 
2013-11-27 01:01:58 PM  

Cat Food Sandwiches: These new rules weren't necessary as long as the IRS could just deny tax exempt status to Obama's enemies.



Did I miss something? When did this happen? Link, please, if you'd be so kind
 
2013-11-27 01:02:05 PM  

k1j2b3: slayer199: On it's face, it seems like a great idea.  But it also seems rather subjective.  Who will determine "excessive?"  Seems like that's going to be ripe for abuse.

I am sure it will be evenly applied between conservative and liberal groups. Am I right?

How about we just get rid of all these specialty tax exempt statuses in the first place? Then, the atheists will not be upset about special tax statuses for churches. Non-profits will no longer be getting tax breaks. Everyone will be on an even playing field and no one will benefit politically depending on who is in office.


Because people by and large donate more to non-profits when they get something in return, like a tax write-off. This is doubly so for businesses that make charitable donations. Eliminate tax exemptions and most charities will fold in a month.
 
2013-11-27 01:02:09 PM  

Cat Food Sandwiches: These new rules weren't necessary as long as the IRS could just deny tax exempt status to Obama's enemies.


So how many conservative 501c(4)s were denied, versus how many left-wing ones?
 
2013-11-27 01:02:56 PM  

CreamFilling: Magorn: impaler: Define "excessive."

Here's 32 pages of the IRS doing just that (PDF)

but you'll be getting off cheap if you pay Rex to interpret it for you

A 32 page document to define "excessive" is a perfect example of government in action practice.


"They didn't define "excessive"! It's too vague!"

No, there are very strict rules defining "excessive".

"They wasted too much time and resources defining "excessive"! Government waste!"

Do you farks have any intellectual honesty? At all?
 
2013-11-27 01:04:55 PM  

oryx: Except if its name is MoveOn.org


I live with my mom
 
2013-11-27 01:04:57 PM  

Cat Food Sandwiches: These new rules weren't necessary as long as the IRS could just deny tax exempt status to Obama's enemies.


did that really happen?
 
2013-11-27 01:06:22 PM  

Cat Food Sandwiches: These new rules weren't necessary as long as the IRS could just deny tax exempt status to Obama's enemies.


OH, THERE WILL BE A RECKONING, NONBELIEVER. A TOTALING OF SUMS, AND A SNAPPING OF TEETH....

i.cdn.turner.com
 
2013-11-27 01:08:45 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: CreamFilling: Magorn: impaler: Define "excessive."

Here's 32 pages of the IRS doing just that (PDF)

but you'll be getting off cheap if you pay Rex to interpret it for you

A 32 page document to define "excessive" is a perfect example of government in action practice.

"They didn't define "excessive"! It's too vague!"

No, there are very strict rules defining "excessive".

"They wasted too much time and resources defining "excessive"! Government waste!"

Do you farks have any intellectual honesty? At all?


Choose one:
What does that have to do with intellectual honesty?
-or-
Why are you so touchy this morning?
 
2013-11-27 01:09:20 PM  

RexTalionis: impaler: Define "excessive."

For $450 an hour, sure, I'll be glad to.


$350 an hour here.

Magorn: what_now: Citizens United was about corporations. 501C(3) non profits are specifically not allowed to lobby. This is far, far overdue.

Well these are c(4)'s not (3)'s but yes the same restrictions are supposed to apply , Citizen United was actually a C4 organization however, but yes as c(3) and 4's are technically corporations the decision hinged on the right of corporate speech


I am of the opinion that CU doesn't apply to this.  All these rules do is clarify existing regulations.  CU said that people don't lose their 1st Amendment rights to free speech just because they exercise those rights through a corporation.  However, it didn't say you had a right to maintain your tax free status when you did those things.
 
2013-11-27 01:09:32 PM  
Kome:

Because people by and large donate more to non-profits when they get something in return, like a tax write-off. This is doubly so for businesses that make charitable donations. Eliminate tax exemptions and most charities will fold in a month.

If a charity cannot win over people without a tax deduction, then I think the charity should fold. Should your only motivation for helping others be reduced to a tax deduction? If we created a fairer, more evenly applied tax law, people would have more money to spend on charities.

I don't donate things to Goodwill or my church because I can get a write-off. I donate because it is the right thing to do, and I want to help others in need.
 
2013-11-27 01:10:01 PM  
Yes, this makes sense.    Obama campaigned on the premise "We will punish our enemies and reward our friends".

This is nothing new.   Divisive and vindictive appear to be hallmarks of this Administration.
 
2013-11-27 01:10:34 PM  

what_now: Citizens United was about corporations. 501C(3) non profits are specifically not allowed to lobby. This is far, far overdue.


501c3's can lobby or advocate for issues though, as long as it is not for or against a candidate. A social service charity could advocate for immigration reform or oppose a specific tax cut bill, for example. It is just suppose to be an "insubstantial" part of what they do.
 
2013-11-27 01:10:51 PM  

CreamFilling: Magorn: impaler: Define "excessive."

Here's 32 pages of the IRS doing just that (PDF)

but you'll be getting off cheap if you pay Rex to interpret it for you

A 32 page document to define "excessive" is a perfect example of government in action practice.


No, it's a perfect example of the government having to write the rules in such a way as to prevent the ever present assholes who want to weasel their way out of following the law from doing so.
 
2013-11-27 01:11:18 PM  

k1j2b3: I am sure it will be evenly applied between conservative and liberal groups. Am I right?

How about we just get rid of all these specialty tax exempt statuses in the first place? Then, the atheists will not be upset about special tax statuses for churches. Non-profits will no longer be getting tax breaks. Everyone will be on an even playing field and no one will benefit politically depending on who is in office.


Exactly my point.  Depending upon which party is in power, they can use it as a tool to hamper donations.  I'm more in agreement with your PoV.   Either allow it without restrictions or eliminate it altogether...none of this subjective crap.
 
2013-11-27 01:12:39 PM  

oryx: Except if its name is MoveOn.org


i105.photobucket.com
 
2013-11-27 01:12:52 PM  

Muta: vartian: Good, but it kind of rings a hollow from the man that refused public campaign funds in order to spend more than any candidate before him..

Wasn't Obama outspent by Romney?


Yes. Obama has the dubious honor of being the first POTUS to be both outspent and outfunded by his opponent, IIRC.

Even if he wasn't, he was still verifiably outspent by Romney, who had a much, much larger war chest than Obama.

Gotta love conservative "facts".
 
2013-11-27 01:12:57 PM  
Page 18 lays it out:

These proposed regulations make clear that all
communications - including written, printed, electronic (including Internet), video,
and oral communications - that express a view, whether for or against, on a
clearly identified candidate (or on candidates of a political party) would constitute
candidate-related political activity.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2013-2 84 92.pdf
 
2013-11-27 01:13:59 PM  
Forget the middle finger, Citizens United needs to be double fisted by an angry gorilla.
 
2013-11-27 01:15:30 PM  

yelmrog: Cat Food Sandwiches: These new rules weren't necessary as long as the IRS could just deny tax exempt status to Obama's enemies.

did that really happen?


No, it didn't. Some Tea-Party groups (as well as some associated with liberal causes) had to answer a few more questions before they were approved, and then they were approved. That's it. That's the entire phony scandal.
 
2013-11-27 01:16:28 PM  

netcentric: Yes, this makes sense.    Obama campaigned on the premise "We will punish our enemies and reward our friends".

This is nothing new.   Divisive and vindictive appear to be hallmarks of this Administration.


Herrrrrrrp.

I'm sure its a coincidence the Bush Administration hired all those lawyers from Liberty Law School. (FYI Liberty Law School is a fourth tier toilet only suitable for morons who couldn't score higher than 140 on the LSAT)
 
2013-11-27 01:16:36 PM  

k1j2b3: slayer199: On it's face, it seems like a great idea.  But it also seems rather subjective.  Who will determine "excessive?"  Seems like that's going to be ripe for abuse.

I am sure it will be evenly applied between conservative and liberal groups. Am I right?

How about we just get rid of all these specialty tax exempt statuses in the first place? Then, the atheists will not be upset about special tax statuses for churches. Non-profits will no longer be getting tax breaks. Everyone will be on an even playing field and no one will benefit politically depending on who is in office.


Because not every 501c is a shadow organization exploiting tax loopholes for political purposes.  The National Trust for Historic Preservation is a 501c(3), as are the Mount Vernon Ladies' Association and the Thomas Jefferson Foundation.  Heck, my own museum is a c(3).  None of these organizations could operate without tax-exempt status.  There's not a lot of profit in public history, and without charitable donations a lot places have to close their doors.
 
2013-11-27 01:17:03 PM  

clancifer: Teabaggers are gonna scream the derp.  Watch Fox News throw up a big hissy fit over this.


At least now I know what the Thanksgiving dinner talking points from the in-laws are gonna be...

*sigh*
 
2013-11-27 01:18:24 PM  

impaler: Define "excessive."


One little movie released near an election apparently

/not serious, as that would overturning SCOTUS
 
2013-11-27 01:18:28 PM  
Concrete, unambiguous legal terms like "reasonable" and "excessive" seldom invite lawsuits.
 
2013-11-27 01:18:28 PM  
I'm fine with this. I am sure it will apply to many other organizations out there as well, and it should.
 
Displayed 50 of 166 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report