American Politics during the Obama Presidency

[QUOTE=Esten;438449]They're not. They are involved in ensuring applications for tax-exempt status are legitimate.

If you don't want to risk scrutiny, don't apply for tax-exempt status.[/QUOTE]If Obama gets his way and makes the IRS implement proposed new rules, then that's exactly what will happen. The IRS will be encharged with determining whether an organization is involved in any "direct or indirect candidate-related political activity."

As you say if the organization wants to continue operating as usual it can start paying 35% tax to the federal government. Right, fat chance Esten. That's kind of like saying if you didn't want to get drafted and serve in Vietnam you could shoot yourself in the head. What will happen is the organizations will either cease to exercise their right to free speech and stop political activity. Or they will change their status and disclose the names of each and every one of their donors. The ACLU and Sierra Club among others are up in arms over this.

It's ridiculous the mental gymnastics and self-deceit that the Obama Administration will go to in order improve its edge in politics, especially given this is his last term. The man was a professor of constitutional law but thinks it's fine to disregard the first amendment.

[QUOTE=BigBossMan;438434]Yes but could not the groups just have paid the taxes and gotten their first amendment rights freed? Sometimes pragmatic men are more successful than ideologues.

On his deathbed, my dad who fought the IRS for 15 years told me, if he could do it all over again he would have just paid the fuckin taxes and moved on. Too much of his life was wasted fighting the IRS.

Welcome back.[/QUOTE]"Parties tend to become pragmatic when they become powerless. It's time for us to get pragmatic. Please, let us come out of this conference not only resolved to stand for our principles, but let's come out of this conference resolved to win elections again. We don't get to govern if we don't win.".

In other words, stop bitching about unfairness of political tax exemptions, voting reforms, immigration strategies, press bias, etc. Conservative hardliners believe that one can arise from poverty by sheer hard work & determination, riight? And here, they are moaning & groaning like the welfare class that they so despise.

But with Trump, Issa, Palin, Judge Napolitano, Ryan, Cruz & O'Reilly, it looks more like the 3 Stooges & Company.

[QUOTE=RevBS;438460]"Parties tend to become pragmatic when they become powerless. It's time for us to get pragmatic. Please, let us come out of this conference not only resolved to stand for our principles, but let's come out of this conference resolved to win elections again. We don't get to govern if we don't win.".
[/QUOTE]I just finished reading the book "Double Down" which is about the 2012 Presidential campaign. With the caveat that these are liberal writers, one problem Romney faced is that he received all his campaign financing from a small group of people. So with the campaign laws written as they were, donors are limited to giving certain amounts within certain time periods. So in August when the 47% comment came out, Obama gambled and moved funds forward to hammer Romney in television ads when Romney could not fight back due to lack of funds. Romney eventually had to cut a check for $20 million from his own stash to keep his campaign going. Obama had a better grassroots fund raising campaign so he did not have a donor problem or at least he had more slack. So the other work around from the IRS problem was just to give directly to the Romney campaign. In truth, the Tea Party did not like Romney all that much which is why they did not want to give up control of the money.

In Romney's version of why he lost, he says that Obama gave all his special interest groups gifts. In my cynical mind, the special interest groups then re-gifted some of their haul back to Obama's campaign which allowed Obama to paint Romney as an out-of-touch plutocrat which allowed him to win the final 4% which led to victory.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;438450]If Obama gets his way and makes the IRS implement proposed new rules, then that's exactly what will happen. The IRS will be encharged with determining whether an organization is involved in any "direct or indirect candidate-related political activity."
[/QUOTE]So Issa and Boehner need to come up with an actual reform. Lerner is going to continue to cite the Fifth Amendment because she is in violation of the Hatch Act.

I watched the IRS hearing this week, what struck me most was the appalling conduct of the chairman, Darrell Issa.

He controlled the hearing the entire time, and when Lerner kept taking the 5th in response to his questions and slideshows, he made a short statement and quickly adjourned the meeting. He said "I have no expectation that Miss Lerner will cooperate with this committee, and therefore we stand adjourned." and banged the gavel to adjourn. When he said " [I]this committee[/I]" he really meant "[I]me[/I]". He didn't ask if anyone else had questions. When Elijah Cummings said he had a question, Issa initially completely ignored him. He then tried to dissuade Cummings, encouraged Lerner to leave, and then finally asked that Cummings microphone be cut off. [b]Un-be-lievable ![/b]

This is not the first time Issa has blatantly abused his position. Last year, he selectively released documents and withheld specific documents that showed IRS staffers were not politically motivated. There has been speculation that Lerner was politically motivated, but no evidence. OTOH, Issa's blatant partisan conduct is on display for all to see. This guy needs to be fired, charged for abusing his position, and tried in court.

Esten, can you say Henry Waxman?

Where were your "outrage" and "monkey court" condemnations when Waxman gaveled down Issa a few years ago? Waxman's behavior was exponentially more egregious than Issa's treatment of the blowhard Cummings.

Liberal / Progressive double standard again!

I am sure the Democrats want to start this side show to distract the public from the disaster of ObamaCare and Obama's failed foreign policy.

I noticed Obama has now "extended" the grace period for nonconforming healthcare polices for another 2 years in hopes of forestalling another wave of cancellations for business employer's policies which will occur just before the 2014 mid-terms. I suspect the results will be the same as the last time Obama waved his "magic wand" over the personal policy cancellations in 2013, NOTHING! The several states insurance commissioners refused to acknowledge the reprieve as it contradicted the law as written.

Have you noticed how many of the architects of ObamaCare have "retired" rather than face defeat at the polls?

2014 is coming and the Democrats are scared, very scared.

[b] Nancy Pelosi turned out the lights and killed the microphones in 2008[/b]

[quote]House Dems turn out the lights but GOP keeps talking

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and the Democrats adjourned the House, [highlight]turned off the lights and killed the microphones[/highlight], but Republicans are still on the floor talking gas prices.

Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) and other GOP leaders opposed the motion to adjourn the House, arguing that Pelosi's refusal to schedule a vote allowing offshore drilling is hurting the American economy. They have refused to leave the floor after the adjournment motion passed at 11:23 a.m., and they are busy bashing Pelosi and her fellow Democrats for leaving town for the August recess.[snip]

“This is the people’s House,” Rep, Thaddeus McCotter (R-Mich.) said. “This is not Pelosi’s politiburo.”[snip]

Democratic aides were furious at the GOP stunt, and [highlight]reporters were kicked out of the Speaker’s Lobby[/highlight], the space next to the House floor where they normally interview lawmakers. [snip] [/quote]
"Un-be-lievable!" Really?

How quick they forget, but turnabout seems like fair play to me.

This is exactly why very little gets done by all the jokers in government. What about when you did this or what about when you did that? The only defense any side needs to make is to remind the other side about their past infraction and the matter is then it closed because no one will ever be wrong as the sides are then even. These elected slickers have used the "tip for tat" excuse so much the public, as we can see here is now readily accepting it as a defense when in effect it is clearly not, no matter what side you're on.

Tit for tat is one of the set up argument for many divorces, would be nice to divorce all these clowns with their endless excuses and no action. Would be even nicer, no smarter if Joe public would stop accepting and using it as a defense. Remember every time either side uses it, its more than likely a cop out of something they did wrong and they're using past bad behavior / action to excuse the current one. Bet I get no love for this post from either side.

[QUOTE=Esten;438473]I watched the IRS hearing this week, what struck me most was the appalling conduct of the chairman, Darrell Issa.[/QUOTE]I don't know much about Issa, and probably agree with his positions on economic issues. I definitely agree with his position on the IRS's involvement in politics. The IRS should stay out of it and leave it to the bipartisan Federal Election Commission. I suspect you're mostly right though, in what you said in your post.

However, piling on with Punter and Doppelganger, your side of the aisle is guiltier than Republicans. Republicans haven't had a leader in a position of real power who was blatantly unfair and extremely partisan since Tom DeLay. You've got Obama, Pelosi and Reid. All put winning elections before the interests of the nation. All are willing to bend the truth. That's a euphemism by the way.

Come on Tiny, Issa is a Fuck up. You are smarter than what he is believing in, his crazy rantings?

[QUOTE=Tiny12;438480]I don't know much about Issa, and probably agree with his positions on economic issues. I definitely agree with his position on the IRS's involvement in politics. The IRS should stay out of it and leave it to the bipartisan Federal Election Commission. I suspect you're mostly right though, in what you said in your post.

However, piling on with Punter and Doppelganger, your side of the aisle is guiltier than Republicans. Republicans haven't had a leader in a position of real power who was blatantly unfair and extremely partisan since Tom DeLay. You've got Obama, Pelosi and Reid. All put winning elections before the interests of the nation. All are willing to bend the truth. That's a euphemism by the way.[/QUOTE]

I really don't know much about him WT69. I just read his write up on Wikipedia and agree with some of his positions and disagree with others. He does appear to have a good background in business, and should know how to grow the economy better than most in Congress. You'll note that I agreed with Esten's post about Issa shutting down Cummings. This is because, unlike Barack Obama, Lois Lerner, Esten and Darrell Issa, I believe people (and organizations composed of people) should be able to say what they want to say. Politicians and bureaucrats shouldn't interfere with that. When they shut down free speech to benefit themselves politically it's taking us down the wrong road.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;438499]This is because, unlike Barack Obama, Lois Lerner, Esten and Darrell Issa, I believe people (and organizations composed of people) should be able to say what they want to say. Politicians and bureaucrats shouldn't interfere with that. When they shut down free speech to benefit themselves politically it's taking us down the wrong road.[/QUOTE]Oh come on, now you're sounding silly. Like I said before in so many words, if you choose to exercise your free speech by donating to an organization that applies for tax-exempt status, you must recognize that that organization may have it's application scrutinized and possibly rejected if it doesn't meet the requirements.

Tiny, aren't there like a million ways you can exercise your free speech? And yet you focus only on financial donations to groups that voluntarily applied to the IRS for tax-exempt status? A group is not eligible for this status if it is primarily political.

No surprise the right wingers here attempt to justify Darrell Issa's reprehensible conduct. But it turns out, their justifications are weak and phony. I guess they went on Google and this is all they could find.

Republicans stayed behind after Pelosi adjourned the House without allowing a vote on offshore drilling. It was a publicity stunt. There is no evidence Pelosi herself shut off the lights briefly. It's true Pelosi refused to allow a vote, but this is a separate issue. The controlling parties in the House and Senate determine what gets voted on, right or wrong this is a longstanding precedent and priviledge afforded to the party in power in each chamber. It's a separate issue.

The example with Waxman was in fact on the House Oversight Committee. But it was Issa interrupting and trying to derail Waxman while he was in the middle of questioning someone. Did Cummings do that to Issa? Nope. Cummings patiently waited his turn in silence, only to have Issa bang the gavel and adjourn without giving Cummings a chance.

So neither of these examples are comparable to what happened in last week's hearing. But it's the type of superficial, deceptive crud that you can expect an ODS sufferer to fling, and an LIV to believe.

[QUOTE=Esten;438510]Oh come on, now you're sounding silly. Like I said before in so many words, if you choose to exercise your free speech by donating to an organization that applies for tax-exempt status, you must recognize that that organization may have it's application scrutinized and possibly rejected if it doesn't meet the requirements.[/QUOTE]

Esten, After the 2012 elections were over and after the IRS received the scrutiny it deserved for selectively stonewalling applications for 501(c)(4) status, they started timely approving tea party applications. This is probably not an issue going forward if IRS regulations and policies remain as they are now. I'm not upset about the current application process. I am upset about new regulations proposed by the Treasury department, that would apply to all 501(c)(4)'s.

[QUOTE=Esten;438510]Tiny, aren't there like a million ways you can exercise your free speech? And yet you focus only on financial donations to groups that voluntarily applied to the IRS for tax-exempt status? A group is not eligible for this status if it is primarily political.[/QUOTE]

You're mistaken. A section 527 organization (for example, a political action committee or a political party) is tax exempt. There are no limits on contributions to tax exempt 527's, no restrictions on who may contribute, and no spending limits. However, section 527 organizations must be primarily political, and they must disclose their donors. The issues with the IRS have nothing to do with 527's. A 527 can and must spend its money on politics, and it will remain tax exempt.

The issue with the IRS is with 501(c)(4)'s, organizations which are set up to promote activities "that promote the common good and general welfare of the people of the community." So what represents "the common good and general welfare?" Well, we'd both agree that Planned Parenthood's 501(c)(4) qualifies. Others would disagree. Maybe a majority of Americans would disagree. Should they have the right to shut down Planned Parenthood's 501(c)(4)? Should Planned Parenthood's 501(c)(4) be prohibited from becoming involved with political issues? Should the Planned Parenthood 501(c)(4) be forced to disclose its members? Having been hassled by a group of aggressive protesters who thought I was an "abortionist" when I entered the local PP to get tested for VD and make a contribution, I've got particularly strong feelings about that one. Anyway, my answer to all these questions would be HELL NO!

You would probably agree with the aims of Obama's 501(c)(4), Organizing for Action (OFA) and believe it promotes social welfare. It promotes gun control and immigration reform, among other things. I on the other hand am a director of and contributor to a 501(c)(4) organization that promotes reduction of wasteful government spending, reduction of government deficits, and an efficient and pro-growth tax system. As long as those organizations are promoting policies that their members believe primarily promote general welfare, politicians and the IRS have no business shutting them down, forcing them to disclose the names of their donors, or forcing them not to be involved with political issues.

The Treasury Department has indicated that it plans to place new limits on "any or all activities[by501(c)(4)'s] that do not further social welfare." Furthermore, they propose that social welfare does not include "any public communication within 30 days of a primary election or 60 days of a general election that refers to one or more clearly identified candidates in that election or, in the case of a general election, refers to one or more political parties represented in that election." Voter registration drives and preparation of voter guides are out the window, as is "hosting or conducting an event within 30 days of a primary election or 60 days of a general election at which one or more candidates appear."

Anyway, if you've got an organization that's primarily political, it qualifies for section 527 and it will be tax exempt. If it's entirely apolitical, it qualifies as a 501(c)(3) organization. Then it's not only tax exempt, but contributions from donors qualify as tax deductions. But what if it's a hybrid, promoting what its contributers believe is a social good while somehow being involved in the political process? What if its members, be they involved with Planned Parenthood, the American Civil Liberties Union, or a tea party organization, fear persecution from loonies, politicians or bureaucrats? Then it's a 501(c)(4). These have their place. You probably don't understand this issue. Or alternately you have the same attitude towards free speech as Christina Kirchner, Richard Nixon and Vladimir Putin --it's fine as long as it's something you agree with. I'm not being silly.

Tiny, I was referring to groups that voluntarily applied for 501 (c)(4) tax-exempt status. You correctly point out that 527's are tax-exempt. My statement was over broad because I meant a group is not eligible for 501 (c)(4) tax-exempt status if it is primarily political.

This is what your whole issue is about, right - 501 (c)(4) groups? So what's the problem? You want to support a group but remain anonymous. Just pick a group that's already 501 (c)(4) approved. Or wait until a new group you want to support gets approval. Where is the widespread abuse of donor confidentiality with approved 501 (c)(4) s?

I can assure you that freedom of speech is just as important on the left as the right. Democrats are not about suppressing free speech. The underlying motive for the rigor behind 501 (c)(4) approvals is to ensure that big-monied interests (whether they be individuals, organizations or corporations) cannot anonymously funnel huge sums to influence elections. I believe you will find this is a concern for many Americans of all political stripes.