It’s probably worth noting that all these Tea Party groups that sprouted up seeking 501(c)(4) status were frauds. They weren’t doing anything illegal, although it should be illegal. The 501(c)(4) designation is for groups that can be fairly described as “social welfare organizations” or “local associations of employees.” Your average Tea Party group is neither of those things. When you start describing anti-tax fanaticism as social welfare, you’ve allowed everything to be social welfare. “We’re a social welfare group that tries to deny people access to health care!”
Give me a break.
The other thing about 501(c)(4) groups is that they have to be for-profit and they can’t have a primarily political purpose. Does that sound like a Tea Party group to you?
Maybe if the Republicans funded the IRS at an adequate level and didn’t deluge them with bullshit tax-avoidence schemes, the agency wouldn’t feel compelled to take short cuts.
Of course, the IRS will be lucky if they can keep the lights on by the time the GOP gets done with them.
Lunatics.
Doesn’t the fact that the IRS didn’t prosecute any of them indicate they weren’t in fact frauds? Or did they follow the anti-tax = social welfare reasoning that is ridiculous?
They’re too scared to do anything about it. Even looking at these groups is now causing them massive problems.
Especially since Holder called it an “outrage”. Darryl Issa or Mitt Romney needed worry about an audit any more. It would be an “outrage”. OTOH, how many years of Whitewater investigation were not an outrage?
I think all the groups got approved, although one liberal group lost its tax exempt status last year.
Also, the fact that some of these groups were complaining that the delay kept them from having an impact on the 2012 elections kind of admits they were political, doesn’t it?
Good point.
If it’s anything like being a Federal employee, you’re allowed to advocate for certain policies, as this is not considered to be “engaging in political activity.” However, you are not allowed to wear pins, stickers, or advocate for a specific candidate (that is engaging in political activity).
So if they’re not saying, “Obama bad, Romney good,” they’re not engaging in political activity.
I’m afraid that train has already left the station. The one now arriving at the platform is labeled “getting the public to believe that Obama ordered the IRS to harass Tea Party groups.”
Kind of reminds me of Shirley Sherrod.
You mean “proving Clinton ordered Benghazi” or advocating Obama’s impeachment is non-profit advocacy, but campaigning against an anti-gay ballot measure is not?
George Orwell must have written the tax code.
Well, the whole concept of what is or isn’t a political group has been turned on its head since Citizens United.
A 501(c)(4) is allowed to advocate policy, but is not allowed to advocate for or against particular candidates. Karl Rove’s Crossroads USA is a 501(c)(4). So is Organizing for America. That’s a joke.
A 501(c)(3) is not allowed to advocate for or against specific legislation or for or against specific candidates. The Heritage Foundation and Center for American Progress are 501(c)(3)s. That’s an even bigger joke.
The whole thing is a crazy morass. We should not be giving tax exemptions to anyone engaged in any political activities. Period.
I honestly feel sorry for the IRS. To be asked to make judgments on what is or is not political in today’s environment is an impossible task.
Rove’s Crossroads and some of the other large astroturfing operations have incorporated both 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) corporations to arbitrage the legal restrictions.
A 501(c)(3) can advocate for specific legislation but it cannot be their primary activity. But research, public education, and training can cover a lot of advocacy activities. So they can get their members or audience or whatever to do the actually lobbying of representatives and minimize their own direct advocacy.
It is a crazy morass. And becoming crazier with non-profit entrepreneurial ventures like the Susan G. Komen Foundation and other organizations with overpaid executive officers.
The IRS should have gone after the whole lot of them, including Susan G. Komen and audited their compliance with IRS rules. And not have profiled tax cutter and tea partiers lake they used to profile anti-war organizations.
OFA really seems to take being a 501c(4) seriously. Remember it changed its name and status when Obama officially stopped running for anything ever again. And we screamed at it for taking anonymous donations, but they are supposedly identifying names and dollar amounts for the big ones.
What I want to know–Stephen Colbert went through this for weeks during the campaign, explaining it so carefully and beautifully and hilariously you’d think everybody would know by now, but they don’t. Is Colbert too subtle for our political journalists?
501(c)4 groups are nonprofit, not for-profit. They have a limited ability to engage in political activity (e.g. lobbying) so long as it doesn’t advocate for an individual candidate, but it can’t exceed a fairly small percentage of their overall activity. Usually 501(c)4s are – or were – things like educational foundations. Needless to say, Tea Party groups have no business being granted 501(c)4 status, but there’s nothing in the law that says that the “education” they provide need be truthful.
Its only commonsense to take a close look at an anti-tax anti-government organization who wants to have tax free status. We focused on the taxes of Capone and other mafia types. I see no difference a tax cheat is a tax cheat.
Meanwhile, back at Justice…
Also wonder if Ken Starr is between jobs at present.