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.

(The Daily Caller)   Tea Party PACs "felt the ramifications of IRS targeting so severely" that they have to spend 98.6% of their donations on operating expenses and 0% on getting people elected   (dailycaller.com) divider line 116
    More: Obvious, IRS, operating costs, donations, good citizen  
•       •       •

2265 clicks; posted to Politics » on 13 Feb 2014 at 1:09 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-02-13 11:59:20 AM  
I'm beginning to think these teabagger groups may not be the liberty-loving saviors of democracy they think they are.
 
2014-02-13 12:05:24 PM  
um... if they're applying for tax-exempt status, they're supposed to be non-political "social welfare" organizations. that means that they're not supposed to spend money on getting people elected.
 
2014-02-13 12:06:44 PM  
I should have started one of these back in 2008.  I'd be retired by now.
 
2014-02-13 12:33:08 PM  
Photo from one of their fundraisers.

i61.tinypic.com
 
2014-02-13 12:33:08 PM  

FlashHarry: um... if they're applying for tax-exempt status, they're supposed to be non-political "social welfare" organizations. that means that they're not supposed to spend money on getting people elected.


Good point. So, what did they spend their 1.4% on?
 
2014-02-13 12:39:32 PM  
Look it takes a lot of money to retain the top people.
 
2014-02-13 12:45:02 PM  
I, for one, am shocked, that the folks who brought you Hannity's Freedom Concerts would be so financially irresponsible...
 
2014-02-13 12:47:05 PM  
Well duh! They're "social welfare" groups, not political advocates. Whose welfare did you think they were promoting?
 
2014-02-13 12:50:05 PM  
The 1.4% is for the data overcharges on their Grindr apps.
 
2014-02-13 01:10:44 PM  

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: FlashHarry: um... if they're applying for tax-exempt status, they're supposed to be non-political "social welfare" organizations. that means that they're not supposed to spend money on getting people elected.

Good point. So, what did they spend their 1.4% on?


Hookers and blow
 
2014-02-13 01:14:02 PM  

whither_apophis: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: FlashHarry: um... if they're applying for tax-exempt status, they're supposed to be non-political "social welfare" organizations. that means that they're not supposed to spend money on getting people elected.

Good point. So, what did they spend their 1.4% on?

Hookers and blow


I believe that's the central tenet of fiscal conservatism.
 
2014-02-13 01:16:15 PM  
Those rising administrative costs are a real bummer these days.
 
2014-02-13 01:16:59 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: I'm beginning to think these teabagger groups may not be the liberty-loving saviors of democracy they think they are.


no they love unrestricted capitalism, fleece all the money they can...
 
2014-02-13 01:18:07 PM  
operating expenditures, like paying consultants, companies who produce mailing materials and renting mailing lists

How do you define spending as "on a cause or candidate"?  I presume those mailing materials and lists were so they could mail out spam in favor of their preferred candidates and causes?  Is TFA expecting them to just act as a middle man to give money straight to candidates (so the candidates can spend it on consultants, mailing materials, and mailing lists)?
 
2014-02-13 01:18:59 PM  
Obligatory for every conservative fundraising thread:

Rick Perlstein's The Long Con
 
2014-02-13 01:19:05 PM  

EvilEgg: Look it takes a lot of money to retain the top people.


It's not exactly fair to assume they're all tops. I'm sure there's at least one bottom.
 
2014-02-13 01:21:18 PM  
From the comments:

"The real danger to America is not just gay Obama alone, but a citizenry capable of entrusting a filthy sodomite like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of a gay Obama presidency than to restore the necessary,commonsense ,Godliness and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a creature for their president.

The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr.gay Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America . Blaming the prince of the gay fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. "The Republic can survive a gay Obama, who is, after all, merely a gay fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president."

When did the "Obama is gay" narrative come about?
 
2014-02-13 01:25:35 PM  

Brain_Damage: When did the "Obama is gay" narrative come about?


Gay means bad. Obama is bad. Therefore, Obama is gay.

The logic checks out.
 
2014-02-13 01:30:59 PM  
A vast majority of the donations came from donors who gave under $200 - the committee reported $4,702,716 in unitemized donations under the $200 mark.


hey! that's my grandparents retirement money! she probably thought that would go to some good use, not just lining the pockets of the PAC's organizers.

but we ARE talking about Tea Party vampires so, she was probably mislead.
 
2014-02-13 01:31:00 PM  

Brain_Damage: From the comments:

"The real danger to America is not just gay Obama alone, but a citizenry capable of entrusting a filthy sodomite like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of a gay Obama presidency than to restore the necessary,commonsense ,Godliness and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a creature for their president.

The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr.gay Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America . Blaming the prince of the gay fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. "The Republic can survive a gay Obama, who is, after all, merely a gay fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president."

When did the "Obama is gay" narrative come about?


They've been on that one for quite awhile now, at the very least since 2008
 
2014-02-13 01:31:41 PM  
You guys see how the free market, unimpeded by regulation, works really, really well
for scammers and other leeches on our economy
 
2014-02-13 01:32:14 PM  
So they are operating like many Non profits do.
 
2014-02-13 01:32:19 PM  

FlashHarry: they're supposed to be non-political "social welfare" organizations


the point of 501(c)(4)s is to allow social welfare organizations to engage in politics

the only restrictions are really on supporting specific candidates, specifically:
...if it participates or intervenes, directly or indirectly, in any political campaign on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office.
The term candidate for public office means an individual who offers himself, or is proposed by others, as a contestant for an elective public office, whether such office be national, State, or local. Activities which constitute participation or intervention in a political campaign on behalf of or in opposition to a candidate include, but are not limited to, the publication or distribution of written or printed statements or the making of oral statements on behalf of or in opposition to such a candidate.
that is why barackobama.com is allowed to be the website for obama's 501(c)(4) - organizing for action is a social welfare organization that is used solely to garner political support for social welfare issues like the ppaca, and obama is not a candidate
 
2014-02-13 01:32:51 PM  

Isitoveryet: A vast majority of the donations came from donors who gave under $200 - the committee reported $4,702,716 in unitemized donations under the $200 mark.


hey! that's my grandparents retirement money! she probably thought that would go to some good use, not just lining the pockets of the PAC's organizers.

but we ARE talking about Tea Party vampires so, she was probably mislead.



Yeah, but protecting your grandparents from scammer is something that a tyrannical government like nazi germany would do.
 
2014-02-13 01:33:19 PM  
Article Title"Tea party groups are making and spending millions, but not on candidates"

Quote from article after listing off that 90% of a groups payments were to Mail/Emailoriented advertising expenses: "Direct mail expenditures account for a large quantity of the group's disbursements."

GEEEE, so your telling me that these groups are making millions, and spending them on advertising related expenses but not candidates?.... You mean that these SuperPacs which are required (in order to maintain tax
exempt status and donor list protections) to not directly coordinate or directly donate to specific candidates or campaigns are instead  choosing to spend their money on advertisements... You don't say...

Maybe... just Maybe, a majority of those mailings / advertisements might be in support of.. Oh I dunno.. A Candidate? Think thats possible?
 
2014-02-13 01:33:26 PM  

Brain_Damage: From the comments:

"The real danger to America is not just gay Obama alone, but a citizenry capable of entrusting a filthy sodomite like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of a gay Obama presidency than to restore the necessary,commonsense ,Godliness and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a creature for their president.

The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr.gay Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America . Blaming the prince of the gay fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. "The Republic can survive a gay Obama, who is, after all, merely a gay fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president."

When did the "Obama is gay" narrative come about?


They can't stop thinking about Obama's dick, so OBVIOUSLY he must be a homo using his magical homogay beams to force those thoughts into the heads of Good Christian Patriots.
 
2014-02-13 01:33:41 PM  
Pretty much the same reason most TP candidates run these days. Rake it in, and if you actually get elected, well, so much the better, but keep raking it in. Keep the outrage going and keep the money flowing.
 
2014-02-13 01:33:45 PM  

Brain_Damage: From the comments:

"The real danger to America is not just gay Obama alone, but a citizenry capable of entrusting a filthy sodomite like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of a gay Obama presidency than to restore the necessary,commonsense ,Godliness and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a creature for their president.

The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr.gay Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America . Blaming the prince of the gay fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. "The Republic can survive a gay Obama, who is, after all, merely a gay fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president. Best part?  Forever"

When did the "Obama is gay" narrative come about?

 
2014-02-13 01:33:55 PM  

thurstonxhowell: Brain_Damage: When did the "Obama is gay" narrative come about?

Gay means bad. Obama is bad. Therefore, Obama is gay.

The logic checks out.


Study it out.
 
2014-02-13 01:34:03 PM  

Stoker: So they are operating like many Non profits do.



This.  Nonprofit fraud is so rampant in this country.  We'd be better off taking all the money donated to nonprofits and just giving it to the ultimate intended beneficiaries.
 
2014-02-13 01:34:29 PM  

whither_apophis: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: FlashHarry: um... if they're applying for tax-exempt status, they're supposed to be non-political "social welfare" organizations. that means that they're not supposed to spend money on getting people elected.

Good point. So, what did they spend their 1.4% on?

Hookers and blow

Orthopedists and Preparation-H.
 
2014-02-13 01:34:47 PM  

TofuTheAlmighty: Obligatory for every conservative fundraising thread:

Rick Perlstein's The Long Con


In fairness, that was pretty much what the last election cycle was about. Did anyone actually think that Michele Bachmann or Cain stood a snowflake's chance in the Hell of Fiery Torment? It was to secure cash, plain and simple. Coulter, Palin, any number of other shills, their purpose to produce product that can be bought at a modest price--or "given away" for a modest donation to a fund or site--and then hook folks up with recurring payments. It is essentially farming cash from fear and denial, and as of late, the harvest has been good because they've sown so much to fear and so much to deny, and so long as folks keep their bullsh*t detectors dialed WAY down, and their noses out of that pesky "Liberal" press--which is to say anything other than approved sources, which anyone who actually did much reading from the previous eras of demagogues and authoritarian asshats might remember if they weren't baking their skulls with numerous bottles of gin and whiskey and plating up with Chick tracts and misinterpreted pages from a Bible that few actually bother to read in context.

This cycle wasn't about winning. Oh, Mitt might have been hoping, but the point was to get Ryan out there, money to come in, focus on Congressional Outrage Races, and pile up warchests, while spending enough around the Punditverse to keep them interested in spouting tripe, instead of maybe getting an odd case of professional integrity and ethics from cropping up. Most of the passing off of cash, is what keeps the Outrage Machine rolling: gettin' paid...
 
2014-02-13 01:35:26 PM  

thurstonxhowell: Brain_Damage: When did the "Obama is gay" narrative come about?

Gay means bad. Obama is bad. Therefore, Obama is gay.

The logic checks out.


Gay = Bad. Bad = Obama. Obama = Socialist. Socialist = Communist. Communist = Red. Red = Republican.

Therefore, the gay Romney presidency would have been even worse!
 
2014-02-13 01:35:45 PM  
I am shocked.  SHOCKED I SAY! That a political fund raising group may exist only for the enrichment of the people running the damned thing.

What next, Congressional candidates pocketing their unspent campaign funds?
 
2014-02-13 01:36:24 PM  

thurstonxhowell: Brain_Damage: When did the "Obama is gay" narrative come about?

Gay means bad. Obama is bad. Therefore, Obama is gay.

The logic checks out.


I figured it was because he's an attractive and powerful man, but there have been no Clintonesque sex scandals involving him.
 
2014-02-13 01:38:18 PM  
Remember kids, this is a grassroots organization.  It takes a lot of overhead to make this baby sprout.
 
2014-02-13 01:38:42 PM  
Just a ragtag, grassroots collection of like-minded, non-partisan independents who favor limited government and financial prudence.
 
2014-02-13 01:40:53 PM  

sprawl15: FlashHarry: they're supposed to be non-political "social welfare" organizations

the point of 501(c)(4)s is to allow social welfare organizations to engage in politics

the only restrictions are really on supporting specific candidates, specifically:
...if it participates or intervenes, directly or indirectly, in any political campaign on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office.
The term candidate for public office means an individual who offers himself, or is proposed by others, as a contestant for an elective public office, whether such office be national, State, or local. Activities which constitute participation or intervention in a political campaign on behalf of or in opposition to a candidate include, but are not limited to, the publication or distribution of written or printed statements or the making of oral statements on behalf of or in opposition to such a candidate.that is why barackobama.com is allowed to be the website for obama's 501(c)(4) - organizing for action is a social welfare organization that is used solely to garner political support for social welfare issues like the ppaca, and obama is not a candidate


Right, but 501(c)(4) orgs have to disclose their donors. 501(c)(3) orgs do not. That is why so many PACs registered as c3's, and why many with political names were asked to fill out extra forms to ensure that they are not political by nature.
 
2014-02-13 01:42:57 PM  
Ahh I should go there and charge a 500k consulting fee to help them understand how a liberal thinks.
 
2014-02-13 01:44:54 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: sprawl15: FlashHarry: they're supposed to be non-political "social welfare" organizations

the point of 501(c)(4)s is to allow social welfare organizations to engage in politics

the only restrictions are really on supporting specific candidates, specifically:
...if it participates or intervenes, directly or indirectly, in any political campaign on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office.
The term candidate for public office means an individual who offers himself, or is proposed by others, as a contestant for an elective public office, whether such office be national, State, or local. Activities which constitute participation or intervention in a political campaign on behalf of or in opposition to a candidate include, but are not limited to, the publication or distribution of written or printed statements or the making of oral statements on behalf of or in opposition to such a candidate.that is why barackobama.com is allowed to be the website for obama's 501(c)(4) - organizing for action is a social welfare organization that is used solely to garner political support for social welfare issues like the ppaca, and obama is not a candidate

Right, but 501(c)(4) orgs have to disclose their donors. 501(c)(3) orgs do not. That is why so many PACs registered as c3's, and why many with political names were asked to fill out extra forms to ensure that they are not political by nature.


The good news is, that their "political nature" is just a cover for fleecing rubes. Perfectly legal, and wholly American. This is a heartwarming tale of grift, and one I wholeheartedly support, because it is immoral to let an rube KEEP his money...
 
2014-02-13 01:44:55 PM  

Nonrepeating Rotating Binary: I am shocked.  SHOCKED I SAY! That a political fund raising group may exist only for the enrichment of the people running the damned thing.

What next, Congressional candidates pocketing their unspent campaign funds?


images.politico.com

Approves.
 
2014-02-13 01:45:06 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Right, but 501(c)(4) orgs have to disclose their donors.


the groups mentioned in tfa are 501(c)(4) groups
 
2014-02-13 01:47:44 PM  

whither_apophis: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: FlashHarry: um... if they're applying for tax-exempt status, they're supposed to be non-political "social welfare" organizations. that means that they're not supposed to spend money on getting people elected.

Good point. So, what did they spend their 1.4% on?

Hookers and blow


That's part of the operating expenses.
 
2014-02-13 01:48:40 PM  

rev. dave: Ahh I should go there and charge a 500k consulting fee to help them understand how a liberal thinks.


Please.  They have us all figured out.  They rounded up twenty of us, fed us Starbucks and Cosi, and then made us watch Red Dawn, The Siege, and All the Presidents Men to see our reactions.  Then they left a bag of weed and some Marx reading material in a room that had Doritos-themed wallpaper to torture us.
 
2014-02-13 01:49:34 PM  
Still not seeing why I should care that the rubes are being ripped off.
 
2014-02-13 01:50:24 PM  

El Dudereno: thurstonxhowell: Brain_Damage: When did the "Obama is gay" narrative come about?

Gay means bad. Obama is bad. Therefore, Obama is gay.

The logic checks out.

I figured it was because he's an attractive and powerful man, but there have been no Clintonesque sex scandals involving him.


Sadly it is not even that well thought out.

Republicans watch Law and Order.
There was an episode that focused on the "down low" activities of some black men.
Now in some of their minds most black men are "on the down low" or secretly gay.

I work with two guys who literally believe this.
I wish I were joking.
 
2014-02-13 01:52:52 PM  

FlashHarry: um... if they're applying for tax-exempt status, they're supposed to be non-political "social welfare" organizations. that means that they're not supposed to spend money on getting people elected.


Yeah.  Honestly, if they're either lying to the IRS or lying to idiot teabaggers they're fleecing, I'd rather it be the idiot teabaggers.
 
2014-02-13 01:53:34 PM  

JerkStore: Still not seeing why I should care that the rubes are being ripped off.


I am torn.  On one hand, rubes are being fleeced, which is good, but the rubes are too stupid to realize they are getting ripped off and change their minds about who to vote for, which is bad.

A penniless rube is usually still idealistically pure, because as we all know, there is no connection to Obama's cruelty and evil that can't be made over a few Busch Lights at the local watering hole.
 
2014-02-13 01:55:38 PM  
A decade ago, we took care of an aged relative. Eventually she had to be put into a home, and we had to shut down and sell her house. Like many old people, she had become a hoarder and had kept all of her mail for years. It overflowed many rooms -- average depth was around a foot or so. Almost all of it was fund raising for Republican "hot button" causes. Pressing issues like the return of the Panama Canal.

The success of the Richard Viguerie fund-raising machine was a light bulb moment for many of these hucksters. And since the Reagan years fund-raising over artificially created anxieties has become the chief activity of the Republican Party. Old people, dumbos, the perpetually-aggrieved -- they are moolies to be milked by the Republican blood-sucking machine. To mix metaphors.

The chief new kink in the formula is the foundational principle that there's no money in agreement. Obama follows Bush policies on foreign relations. He's a traitor. He adopts the ACA from the Heritage Foundation and Romneycare: socialism! There's no money in agreement. As a result of this our only hope for sane governance is for the absolute salted-earth, stake-through-the-heart, silver-bullet-in-the-head destruction of the Republican Party.
 
2014-02-13 01:56:47 PM  
So, Mission Accomplished for the IRS!
 
Displayed 50 of 116 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
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