Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:
Of the 501 (c)(4) organizations selected by the IRS for scrutiny, 83% were right-leaning. Of those selected for audit, 100% were right-leaning.
This is known in Democrat circles as “coincidence.”
Joe Doakes
Indeed, a “random act of Goddess”.
Not even a smidgen.
When you lose a political arguement, there are several things you can do. Say “that’s old news”. Say “your side does it too”. Come up with a conspiracy theory…..”you’re funded by the Koch Brothers”. Accuse the other side of being a racist.
None of those really work in this case, so I’ve noticed lefties just lie about this issue. They have been saying “left leaning groups received the same amount of attention by the IRS”.
I find it interesting that the coverage of this as so highly partisan seems to be largely restricted to the right wing media and blogosphere bubble where the conservative mantra of victimization plays so well, but where it is not being given the same spin even remotely in the rest of the media, known for being more fact-based.
It has been an egregious pattern that when the right, exclusively, and particularly the entities which are consistently unreliable as purveyors of fact grab these stories, they turn out not to be true. The right either doesn’t know how to fact check, or doesn’t want to fact check because they don’t like the facts. So the RIGHT has the problem with lying, and with not being factual, and with not correcting the incorrect info when they can and should, perpetuating false reports.
And it is not just the base building, base roiling that is the aim of such propaganda, but fund raising. I blogged on a perfect example of this just this week, where the religious righties over at the MN Family Council relied on a false story of conservative victimization to try to raise support, both participation and funds, just last week.
Here is the Faux News story link: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/02/03/todd-starnes-cant-celebrate-america-school-says/
and here is the mainstream media FACTUAL link, from CBS: http://denver.cbslocal.com/2014/02/06/poudre-school-district-merica-day-controversy-2/
So, no, I don’t at this point believe Breitbart et al, and certainly right wing members of Congress routinely ignore and/or misrepresent fact, so neither should you — if you want to believe what is factual rather than what is propaganda.
The hard reality is that 501(c) 4s are NOT SUPPOSED TO BE ENGAGED IN POLITICAL ACTIVITY, so I suspect that you will find that the IRS did target political groups that shouldn’t have the status of 501(c)4s, and that they did not target only those that were right wing groups, as turned out to be the case in the last go-around when the right tried to promote this fake fuss.
You don’t have a very good track record, gentlemen.
Democrats; using the IRS as their Gestapo since 1960.
“The hard reality is that 501(c) 4s are NOT SUPPOSED TO BE ENGAGED IN POLITICAL ACTIVITY”
Really??…..Really??
Uh, Mrs. Teasdale? The Colorado story has precisely nothing to do with the point of the post. Introducing a red herring is not “fact checking.”
Dog gone occasionally reminisces about a middle school debate teacher who taught her the importance of having your FACTS right.
Life is not eighth grade. In adult life the problem isn’t ‘facts’, it is being able to determine what is a fact and what is an opinion.
Look at the local CBS affiliate story she links to (NOT CBS). It doesn’t support her position at all: Originally, FCHS Student Council proposed Merica Monday (based on alliteration) as a dress up day to show pride in our country. Administration discussed concerns about the negative connotations of the term Merica with regard to being inclusive to the entire student body. At that time, Student Council presented alternatives including America Monday, My Country Monday and Patriotic Day.
And just to make this truly a Dog Gone mixup, the ‘Faux News story’ she links to is clearly labeled as an opinion piece, not a ‘news’ story.
Faux News ?
DG why this infantile form of communication? Or is this what they taught you at the UofM Journalism School? If so ask for a refund.
Hey Doggone, first of all, Starnes is a columnist, not a reporter. Second of all, a school’s PR report sans the testimony of parents is not exactly a sufficient refutation of Starnes’ column. The parents and students, according to Starnes, still dispute this. Nobody at Fox ought to be apologizing for anything.
Moreover, regarding 501 C4, here you go.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/501(c)_organization
Yes, the 501 C4 can and does engage in political activity related to its charter. Ya know, with such a tenuous grasp of the rules of evidence and reality, maybe you ought to read more and comment less. You’re showing your ignorance mightily.
“can and does engage in political activity” Thanks bikebubba, I was wondering if DG would recognize the mistake, not that she’d fess up.
DG, I’m still waiting for you to cite the law Kurt Daudt broke or crime he committed, you implied he is a criminal, where’s your proof?
Well, DG, I find it interesting that you are so completely ignorant that you keep posting your inane, partisan and false drivel on this blog. You just keep proving that left wing nuts are OK with criminal activity, as long as it benefits them and hurts others.
Please, get back on your meds!
DogWhereIsPinalCountyNabbit is a flaming troll. When was the last time this self-proclaimed factcheckerTM had a follow up post to address all her exposed lies, misdirections and strawmen?
Dog Gone is (or has been) an election observer.
She once posted a story at Penigma blog about going to a GOP caucus, volunteering for an officer position, then proceeding to lecture the assembled Republicans about how voter fraud does not exist. She believed that she might have been more convincing if she had only had the foresight to bring her ‘printouts’ with her as proof.
Because you can’t argue with printouts.
I’m willing to be corrected, Dog Gone. Go ahead and fact check me.
If not 83%, then what percentage of the applicants for 501(c)(4) status scrutinized were right-leaning?
If not 100%, then what percentage of those right-leaning applicants were audited?
I cited the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee as my source. Please make sure to include the source of your percentages.
.
DG: TL:fos
But feel free to answer Joe’s question, DG. By all means.
I find it interesting. . .
You don’t find anything interesting, beyond your own navel-gazing sense of self-righteousness.
It’s almost embarrassing to watch any longer. DG drops her lame & occasionally off-topic arguments …….. then the rest of the commenter crowd whips her mercilessly on her faulty thinking and citations. The whole process usually reinforces Mitch’s initial argument in greater detail – are we sure she’s not a conservative plant ?? Her refusal to engage is pathetic and sorta’ typical of the furthest-left liberals. It is funny to see everyone remind her of the times past where she’s made stupid comments which are not backed up by any facts known to man …… thanks to all for the entertainment!
I cited the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee as my source. Please make sure to include the source of your percentages.
Dog cited the Charmin of the House Commode and Bidet Committee, presumably.
The real Dog Gone! Behold!:
http://penigma.blogspot.com/
She currently fancies pictures with scurrilous slogans. She has one up now that shows an offshore drilling rig with the GIANT caption “The Republicans are out of their effing minds if they think it’s okay for me to get my ass shot off for oil, but it’s not ok for me to ask oil companies to pay their taxes.”
Of course, any republican who sees it will immediately think that whoever came up with a slogan like that is off of their effing meds.
How can you tell a charity from a political front? “All groups whose *primary* mission is political should be denied 501(c)(4) status.” That’s what the law says. Blame the IRS all you want but it’s Congress that writes these laws. If we’re going to subsidize organizations with the tax code, then we might not want to invite them to spend a lot of those deductible donations trying to influence public spending. For an example, how hot do we all get about public employee unions advocacy?
DG said:
“The hard reality is that 501(c) 4s are NOT SUPPOSED TO BE ENGAGED IN POLITICAL ACTIVITY”
since this is patently untrue, as a stop by the IRS website will quickly make clear, the questions we need to ask are:
1 is DG so incredibly arrogant that she can state a falsehood as fact and not expect to be “FACT-CHECKED” and caught?
2 is DG so ignorant that she doesn’t know the difference between a 501(c) 4 and a 501(c) 3?
3 is DG just a typical “progressive” given to pathological lying?
emery chirped:“All groups whose *primary* mission is political should be denied 501(c)(4) status.” That’s what the law says.
another careful fact checker rapidly gaining the respect and stature DG enjoys emery seems to have totally overlooked this:
http://www.irs.gov/irm/part7/irm_07-025-004.html#d0e332
“An exempt IRC 501(c)(4) organization may intervene in political campaigns as long as its primary activity is the promotion of social welfare.”
Inconvenient contradiction with your assertion, eh?
““All groups whose *primary* mission is political should be denied 501(c)(4) status.”
But they’re not.
Especially on the left. “Take Action MN, which is essentially an unregulated progressive political party, has a 501(c)(4). Protect MN and the League Of Women Voters both have 501(c)(4) lobbying arms, and both are expressly political.
Those are just three examples off the top of my head.
So – you were saying?
The 501(c)(4) category is ridiculous. People on the left, especially, see social welfare as the most important function of the political state. How can you be involved in social welfare without being involved in politics?
Draw up the papers. I think we should call ourselves the Patriots’ Tea Party for Progress at The Crossroads. Should sail right through. ;^)