IRS proposes “Tea Party” rules

page: 2
11
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 9 2014 @ 08:20 PM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


From reading the proposed regulation, it states:
"These proposed regulations do not address the definition of political campaign intervention under section 501(c)(3). The Treasury Department and the IRS recognize that, because such intervention is absolutely prohibited under section 501(c)(3)..."

Of course, there is a caveat to that, in which they continue with:
"...a more nuanced consideration of the totality of facts and circumstances may be appropriate in that context."

For context and relevance, here is section 501(c)(3):

(3) Corporations, and any community chest, fund, or foundation, organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes, or to foster national or international amateur sports competition (but only if no part of its activities involve the provision of athletic facilities or equipment), or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals, no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual, no substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation (except as otherwise provided in subsection (h)), and which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.


It is more disturbing that given the First Amendment and the right to redress our Government, that the very same Government has imposed rules and categorized persons, that happen to be in the form of "corporations" or other various associations, limits them in the first place.

To me, the fix is simple. Regardless of political affiliation, groups should shrug off the weight of the Government that is imposing Constitutionally unsound regulations in the guise of "tax-exempt". Eventually there will be a revolt to the tax code and it will be fought from all sides of the spectrum as the pendulum swings from side to side in terms of the "party" in power.




posted on Jan, 9 2014 @ 08:21 PM
link   

beezzer
reply to post by XPLodER
 


S'up my friend.

The truth is in the tale. The IRS is going after folks who disagree with the administration.

From audits to denials. The media won't report it.

Fear rules America now.


i think it would be great if the rules were clear enough as to NOT be ambiguous,
and those loop holes closed that are getting people or groups into trouble,
if the tea party intends to "follow" the correct procedures,
they should be shown by example as to make it easy to comply,

the laws are very difficult to navigate,
i think re education is much better than prosecution at this stage,

not all groups were sqeeky clean,
including both sides,

time to clearly define the rules for all?

xploder



posted on Jan, 9 2014 @ 08:23 PM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 


Agreed.

I think that the lawmakers purposefully make these laws ambiguous in order to sneak in personal attacks.



posted on Jan, 9 2014 @ 08:54 PM
link   
Wait a second- they're saying you can't get tax exempt status for propaganda, and that's supposed to be treason and the end of the world?

I fail to see a problem here, unless of course you believe that lying to the American people to influence elections should be tax exempt for some reason?

And how does having to pay taxes equate to taking away the first amendment???



posted on Jan, 9 2014 @ 08:57 PM
link   

CB328
Wait a second- they're saying you can't get tax exempt status for propaganda, and that's supposed to be treason and the end of the world?

I fail to see a problem here, unless of course you believe that lying to the American people to influence elections should be tax exempt for some reason?

And how does having to pay taxes equate to taking away the first amendment???


Here's the kicker.

Imagine a conservative in office, a republican Senate and House. . . . using the same rules that the current administration is using.

It'd be just as scary.



posted on Jan, 9 2014 @ 09:02 PM
link   
reply to post by CB328
 


What is "propaganda"? Who gets to define it? Is it even defined?

Post Script:
For instance, I believe most of what you push is propaganda, rooted in your political ideology. I am sure it is the same for you. This is what lead to the questions above. We are not confined to what we discuss about our Government for a reason. We can think they are bat-guano crazy. We can think they are the saviors of mankind. Matters not. Who are you and I to determine what is and what isn't propaganda?

From a definition point of view; propaganda is "publicity to promote something: information put out by an organization or government to promote a policy, idea, or cause"

That is the obvious point of view. The lessor view is; "misleading publicity: deceptive or distorted information that is systematically spread"

Even then, is that illegal or warranting Government action in the way of punishing or denying a groups' Right to Assemble; Right to Redress and ultimately, their Right to Speak?
edit on 9-1-2014 by ownbestenemy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2014 @ 09:06 PM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


When a government lies to it's citizens, they call it propaganda.

When a citizen lies to it's government, they call it a crime.



posted on Jan, 10 2014 @ 10:15 AM
link   

xuenchen
reply to post by Flatfish
 

Perhaps you could clarify and give some side by side details and comparisons ?
Not everybody is a mind reader.
People that make a point that involves money really need to be specific.
Simple opinions are OK though.


Look, what I wrote was hardly opinion.

The first things you and a lot of others here on ATS need to realize is that this whole issue isn't about removing anyone's ability to raise unlimited amounts of money for political campaigns, the Supreme Court decision in the "Citizens United" case pretty much already did that. This is really about transparency and having to disclose the identity of donors.

It's incredibly ironic to see those who scream the loudest for transparency, sit here and support the fact that our IRS Code is being mis-applied for the explicit purpose of allowing for the very secrecy they supposedly despise.

It's important for the reader to understand that there is a huge difference between the IRS "Code" and what is known as IRS "Regulations." The "Code" is the verbatim language of the actual statute as adopted by Congress and the "Regulations" are the Treasury Dept.'s interpretation & instructions of how that "Code" should be applied by the IRS employees responsible for reviewing the applications of those seeking approval under the statute.

The "nuts" of the problem we're facing today stem from the fact that in 1959, the Treasury Dept. took it upon themselves to "re-define" the "Code" as opposed to interpreting it for application.

A really good explanation of what I'm talking about can be found in the following petition submitted by CREW, (Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington) to IRS Commissioner Steven T. Miller on April 9, 2013. Specifically starting on page 2 under the bold heading "Statutory and Regulatory Background"

crew.3cdn.net...

This issue isn't about republican vs democrat vs libertarian or anything like that. This is about exposing and correcting the very mechanism that TPTB have been utilizing to insure that their money "secretly" drowns out the voice of the common man in the halls of Congress. This is how they've taken over the reigns of our government and due to the fact that the IRS "Code" has been unilaterally re-defined, we're not even allowed to know who "they" is.

We should all be screaming at the top of our lungs and not about the current administration's attempts to correct the problem, but about what was done in 1959 and what has been going on every since. If you want to get the money out of politics, this would be a great place to start and it doesn't even require that any laws be changed, only that they be enforced as written.

I know that many here on ATS don't like Lawrence O'Donnell or MSNBC but, if they can push their bias aside for 15 minutes, he offers one of the best explanations available.




edit on 10-1-2014 by Flatfish because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2014 @ 10:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Flatfish
 

Wow. Great post. Have to say that, because what you provided this community warrants far more than a simple star.

You should have made an exclusive thread of this ... and I recommend you consider that.

--Bows in respect--



posted on Jan, 10 2014 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Snarl
reply to post by Flatfish
 

Wow. Great post. Have to say that, because what you provided this community warrants far more than a simple star.

You should have made an exclusive thread of this ... and I recommend you consider that.

--Bows in respect--


I thank you for the praise but I really don't deserve the credit. If it weren't for Lawrence O'Donnell, I wouldn't know about this either.

On another note, I did indeed author a thread about this very subject in the past and it can be found here;

www.abovetopsecret.com...

It wasn't as widely received as I thought it would be at the time and I believe that was primarily due to the fact that the Tea Baggers here on ATS are reluctant to accept anything that may oppose their premiss of being singled out and exploited.



posted on Jan, 10 2014 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Flatfish
 


I'd give you more respect if you didn't use a sexual slur to mischaracterize me.



posted on Jan, 10 2014 @ 11:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Flatfish
 

Thanks for the link. You'll find a flag and stars for your efforts there. FWIW, your thread there did far better than the majority of mine.


Favor: If you need to mend fences with ketsuko, please make the effort. I like her ... and I want to like you too.



posted on Jan, 10 2014 @ 11:39 AM
link   

ketsuko
reply to post by Flatfish
 


I'd give you more respect if you didn't use a sexual slur to mischaracterize me.


You are probably right but I didn't pick the name for the movement and IMO, the fact that they chose the name they did clearly demonstrates the lack of judgement and foresight that has repeatedly been reflected by almost every single representative they've elected to office.

I mean really, what did they expect to be called when they go around protesting with tea bags dangling from their hats? Just calling them like I see them.






I do know that most members of the Tea Party movement probably had good intentions but it is my belief that they are, by and large, naive with respect to politics and how things work in Washington. Once they let Dick Army and his cohorts kidnap their movement, IMO all credibility was lost.

I apologize if my comments offended you but I assure you I was not directing them at you personally but rather, the current state of the movement and the actions of those elected to represent them in congress.

Despite what you may think of me, the facts still speak for themselves, big money has taken over our government, we're all getting screwed and this loophole in the application of the IRS "Code" is how they're doing it.

edit on 10-1-2014 by Flatfish because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2014 @ 11:55 AM
link   

ketsuko
reply to post by Flatfish
 


I'd give you more respect if you didn't use a sexual slur to mischaracterize me.


On second thought, I know in my heart that you are right about this. From now on, I will make it a point to never use that terminology to describe the movement again.

I don't like it when people call me socialist, communist or nazi either and I guess it's only right that I don't add fuel to the fire.





top topics
 
11
<< 1   >>

log in

join