Morning Java: IRS Scandal? Really! How About Citizens United Scandal?

Enjoy while the caffeine kicks-in!!!! “The World As 100 People,”  to go along with your Sumatra,  Kopi Luwak Indonesian, Kenya AA, Tanzanian, French Roast, Kona Coast, ‘Black Ivory’ [Thai Elephant Dong],  Jamaica Blue Mountain, Ethiopian Yirgacheffe, Costa Rican, Espresso,  Moyobama Peruvian Organic, Indonesian Blend, Coffee Latte, Kauai Blend (often bitter), Colombian Red Lips, or your Folgers 100% Colombian. Coffees of the World

The issues surrounding the IRS and its “targeting” of conservative groups poses a bit of a dichotomy for me.  

First, I am not one who relishes government peeping at its citizenry unless that citizen has proven via their actions they are a direct threat to the greater society. All to often, we read or hear about a vile acts and wonder, “Now, why was that person not under arrest, or why was that person no being watched?”  I will grant backing away from my conviction regarding government scrutiny in that case and that case only.  In  fact, I found it most distasteful to read about the FBI’s involvement in the psychical “squashing” of the Occupy Wall Street movement, even though I knew physical manifestation of the movement would be very short-lived. The FBI must have infiltrated, spied upon, and guided local authorities in strategies to rid cities of the physical encampments.

As a liberal, rest assured I would be mighty upset if the IRS targeted groups that carried “liberal” titles. I will add, however  conservative groups generally choose identifiers that denote themselves as conservative. 

On a secondary basis, I recognize that there are times when dynamics place pressure points of systems and those systems need additional “propping-up”; for lack of a more expedient term. One such dynamic was the Citizens United SCOTUS Decision in 2010.  It should be noted that the Koch Brothers are major contributors to the founding of citizen’s United.  Do you think for one second the Koch Brothers have interest in so called, “social programs” regarding federal governance? Enough said on that point, for now. Post Citizens United the number of requests for 501 (c)(4) certification grew exponentially. despite Justice Alito’s consternation and mouthing, “that’s not true  at the President State of the Union Speech, the president’s words became prophetic.

Characteristics	501(c)3	501(c)4	527
Ability to engage in politics	Not supposed to engage in any political activities, though some voter registration activities are permitted	May engage in political activities, as long as these activities do not become their primary purpose	Politics is what 527s are *required* to do
Endorsing Candidates	CANNOT Endorse Candidates	CAN Endorse Candidates	CAN Endorse AND Field Candidates
Campaign Spending	Prohibited	Permitted but taxed	Required
Lobbying	Some lobbying	Substantial lobbying	No direct lobbying
General Political Advocacy (not related to legislation or the election of candidates.)	Yes, as an educational activity.)	Yes, provided it is not the primary activity of the organization	Yes
Contributions	Able to accept unlimited, tax-deductible donations	Able to accept unlimited, non tax-deductible donations	Able to accept limited (based on FEC regulations), non tax- deductible donations.
Donor Reporting	Donors kept anonymous.	Donors kept anonymous.	Donors are publicly reported.
Must apply with the IRS	YES	NO	YES

Outside the Beltway published the following analysis, and for me it seems very credible and laden with facts. 

The following chart, included in the IRS audit, demonstrates that in the wake of Citizens United, there was a marked increase (~40% a year) in the number of 501(c)4 applications being submitted to the IRS.

Let me note that this period—2010 to 2012—also saw the maturation of the Tea Party. And research into Tea Party communities shows that the accepted wisdom was that new Tea Party chapters should immediately file as 501(c)4 organizations. Ironically, of the three organization tax designations in question—501(c)3, 501(c)4, and 527—only 501(c)4 allows for a group to self-declare their status without first filing with the IRS. The advantage to filing is official recognition, which is only necessary if an outsider challenges the group’s 501(c)4 status. Otherwise, for all intents and purposes, the only thing required to operate as a 501(c)4 is to say that you‘re a 501(c)4. 

Getting back to the IRS scandal, the broader point I’m trying to make is that, whether intentional or not, the very structure of 501(c)4, combined with the Citizens United decision, and the rise of the Tea Party, unexpectedly transformed the 501(c)4 from simply being about social welfare to being about politics. And that this was, generally speaking, a relatively rapid change.The scenario so far is as follows.

We have Tax law written as far back as 1959 without modification for post Ronald Reagan 1980s GOP politics.

We have a selectively crafted SCOTUS heavily stacked with judicial activist by GOP presidents. Heck, the SCOTUS could have included the Neanderthal Robert Bork. Did you know Bork was Romney’s Chief Legal Advisers?

We have a Citizens United decision in favor of an organization the the Koch Brothers heavily support and fund.

We have  a Koch Brothers funded tea party replete with anti-government sycophants, armed  domestic terrorist brandishing weapons in public, racist signage and placards and a need for funding operations. As you know, people with people dislike two things about contributing. They generally do not want to be taxed, and in the case of political contributions they have no desire to have their names associated with their contributions. Thus, the circular and existential threat of Citizens United.

We have the coming 2011/2012 election campaigns with a green Citizens United light for secretive contributions.

What we really have is the smell of a rat!


I have read reports that progressive groups were also delayed in approval of certification. Moreover, there are reports not of one request was denied. They were to a point all approved.  

The IREHR, Institute for Research & Education on Human Rights published a detail piece on May 17th. The piece includes data related to certification denials. 

The Tea Party and the IRS “Scandal” The Actual Facts of the Case Excerpt A May 14 draft report by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration found that none of the 296 questionable applicants had been denied, “For the 296 potential political cases we reviewed, as of December 17, 2012, 108 applications had been approved, 28 were withdrawn by the applicant, none had been denied, and 160 cases were open from 206 to 1,138 calendar days (some crossing two election cycles).” (p. 14)  In fact, the only known 501(c)(4) applicant to recently have its status denied happens to be a progressive group: the Maine chapter of Emerge America, which trains Democratic women to run for office. Although the group did no electoral work, and didn’t participate in independent expenditure campaign activity either, its partisan nature disqualified it from being categorized as working for the “common good.” The Inspector General’s report found that in the “majority of cases, we agreed that the applications submitted included indications of significant political campaign intervention.” (p. 10).  In fact, only 91 of the 296, roughly 31%, of the applications reviewed for the report did not have “indications of significant political campaign intervention.” In other words, more than two thirds of those flagged for processing by a team of specialists had those indications.

Nation of Change published a piece on Monday of this week related to what some insist on calling a scandal.  The writer at Nation of Change questions, “Scandal or Hoax.“

William Boardman  (See permission statement at article end) Published: Monday 3 June 2013 What seems much stranger, but not as surprising as it should, is that so much of the media goes on reporting as fact the partisan political version of a story that never happened. Can’t Anyone Here Play This Game Straight? Almost everything you hear and read in the media about the current IRS “scandal” is based on deliberate falsification of basic facts.  Some might call it lying.   Here’s a reasonably typical media-framing of the IRS lie, from the usually careful and accurate Economist, posted May 23:  “Even before this month’s revelation that conservative political groups applying for 501(c)(4) status were being singled out for special scrutiny….”  You see this false framing of the IRS story across the media spectrum, from Info wars to ABC News and NBC News to the Economist to DemocracyNOW! (The latter on May 24:  “the scandal over the targeted vetting of right-wing groups…).    Even the usually reliable Wonkblog at the Washington Post doesn’t get the story right, apparently because it hasn’t read the relevant law.      An exception to this remarkable mental stampede in the wrong direction was Jeffrey Toobin (New Yorker, May 14) who wondered, “Did the I.R.S. actually do anything wrong?”  His answer started to put the story in reasonable perspective, with a focus on tax law and political money:  “…the scandal isn’t what’s illegal—it’s what’s legal. It’s what society chooses not to punish that tells us most about the prevailing ethical standards of the time.”  Anatomy of a False Narrative – Lying, Laziness, Partisanship, What?  How is it that the conventional framing is dishonest?  Here are some of the ways:   1.     It wasn’t a revelation.  All kinds of people were aware of the underlying problem, that 501(c)(4) tax status abuse had been going on since 1959, and that it took a quantum leap after 2011, when the Supreme Court’s Citizens United Decision opened the democratic process to money flooding that would be facilitated by the secrecy offered by the 501(c )(4) status.   2.     There were bi-partisan public hearings on the problem scheduled by the Senate well before the “scandal” broke.   Anyone could look it up.   3.     As soon as the story broke, Lawrence O’Donnell (MSNBC The Last Word) was reporting accurately on the issue, rooted in the difference between a law that says 501(c)(4) organizations should be “exclusively” for social welfare and a 1959 IRS regulation that says, with Orwellian authority, that “exclusively” is to be interpreted to mean “primarily.”   Too many reporters and others still do not get this, even though responsible research begins with these primary sources.   4.    No one was singled out.   That’s right, no one was singled out.  The problem with 501(c)(4) applications is that the IRS mustreview every one to see if the applicant qualifies for tax-exempt status.  Given the flood of applications from political groups of all sorts post-Citizens United, the IRS needed some way to make sure those applications were “primarily” for social welfare, even though political insiders knew that had been a joke for years (Karl Rove’s Crossroads GPS and MoveOn.org are both IRS-approved 501(c)(4) organizations, of which there are thousands – reportedly 97,382 in 2011).      5.     There is no reason within the law that any political organization should get a tax subsidy from American taxpayers.  That is allowable only under the IRS regulations put in place in 1959 under the Eisenhower administration.  And the Congress could fix this virtually overnight by restoring “primarily” to its original meaning in the law, “exclusively.”  Perhaps, the real scandal, and a bi-partisan one at that, is that that’s not what’s happening.  6.     No one was singled out.  The IRS at some level (that eventually included Lois Lerner) made a remarkably stupid, tone deaf, inept effort to identify applications that were more likely than others to be primarily political.   Looking for applications tagged “tea party” may have reflected the reality of an inordinate number of such applications, but it was really dumb.  Using the tag “party” not only would have done the job, but would have been wholly defensible, since no political party is eligible for public tax subsidy and secrecy for its donors.   7.     No one was singled out.  The IRS net for possibly political organizations caught some 300 applications.  Of these, no more than a third were “conservative” or “tea party” or “right-wing.”  The rest were something else, including “liberal” and “left-wing.”  None of the so-called conservative group applications were denied.  Some were delayed, deservedly so, but a group can function as a 501(c)(4) with an application pending, so it’s hard to see how much damage a delay would do, if any.    8.     At least some of the groups on the right were clearly partisan and perhaps broke the law.   The New York Times of May 26 reports in a story wrongly headlined “Groups Targeted by I.R.S. Tested Rules on Politics” describes several tax exempt groups that spent money on partisan activities.    9.     One of the groups, Emerge America, was granted 501(c)(4) status in 2006 in order to train women to run for elected office.  In 2012, when an IRS review showed that Emerge America was training only Democratic candidates, the IRS revoked the group’s tax-exempt status.     10. Another group calling itself “CVFC 501(c)(4)” on its application in 2010 gave its address as the same as “Combat Veterans for Congress PAC” (political action committee).   Perhaps PAC triggered a closer look.  While awaiting an IRS decision, CVFC spent almost $8,000 on radio ads for a Republican candidate.  CVFC omitted this expenditure from its 2010 tax return.  On a questionnaire asking if it had engaged directly or indirectly in political activity on behalf of a candidate, CVFC checked “NO.”  NBC News Reporting Achieves Incompetence and Partisanship  In a report on May 29, “Open Channel Investigative reporting from NBC News” (bylined Lisa Myers, Rich Gardella, Talesha Reynolds) starts with a flat-out false headline: “IRS higher-ups requested info on conservative groups, letters show.”   The story begins:  “Additional scrutiny of conservative organizations’ activities by the IRS did not solely originate in the agency’s Cincinnati office, with requests for information coming from other offices and often bearing the signatures of higher-ups at the agency….”    The letters don’t show that.  NBC provides two letters, and both come from and direct responses to the IRS Cincinnati office, although one letter also has an apparently hand-stamp signature for “Lois Lerner, Director, Exempt Organizations” and no address other than Cincinnati.  The letters comprise nine pages, of which five pages are form letters.  Each of the applicants also received a personal, two-page request for additional information to justify tax-exempt status.   The IRS asked Ohio Liberty Council Group in March 2012 to update a two year old filing, and to describe its planned activities, public events, membership recruitment, political activity, and lobbying – if any.     The IRS asked Linchpins of Liberty if they had adopted bylaws or chosen a board of directors. The IRS also wanted to know, among other things, about the organizations income and expenses, its loan agreements and other contracts, and whether its activities wound go beyond selling a book (“Linchpins of Liberty”) written by its president.   NBC fails to note that this isn’t a response to a relevant 501(c)(4) application, but the IRS answer on May 6 to an application for the more stringent 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status.   If You Hate Government, Do You Hate It More When It Does Due Diligence?    Nothing in these two letters suggests anything more than due diligence by the IRS in protecting public policy and assets.   The information in the story came to NBC mostly from attorneys representing the complaining groups.   NBC provides no reliable, independent support for the opinions of its biased sources, even though it reports those opinions as more or less fact.   The IRS story went off the tracks of fact the moment Lois Lerner planted a question with a reporter at an American Bar Association conference on May 10.  In answer to the reporter’s posing of Lerner’s question, Lerner answered this way, as reported by Associated Press (no transcript appears to be available):  “The Internal Revenue Service apologized Friday for what it acknowledged was ‘inappropriate’ targeting of conservative political groups during the 2012 election to see if they were violating their tax-exempt status.   “IRS agents singled out dozens of organizations for additional reviews because they included the words ‘tea party’ or ‘patriot’ in their exemption applications, said Lois Lerner, who heads the IRS division that oversees tax-exempt groups. In some cases, groups were asked for lists of donors, which violates IRS policy in most cases, she said.”   For whatever reason, the AP makes the IRS apology institutional even though it comes from a mid-level IRS manager ratting out people she was supposed to be managing.  The news catches her superiors in the IRS, as well as the White House, completely off guard.    It also sets off a right-wing feeding frenzy, which the AP reports at length in the same story.  Somebody Needs to Give This Story a Little Perspective and Proportion  Only near the end of the story, in a clumsily written paragraph, does the AP reporter touch on the factual context for the news Lerner was breaking and in which she had been a central player:   “In all, about 300 groups were singled out for additional review, Lerner said. Of those, about a quarter were singled out because they had ‘tea party’ or ‘patriot’ somewhere in their applications.”   In other words, about 225 applications were not “political conservative groups, as AP had reported at the top of the story, and for which it has yet to issue a correction or an apology.    Given her unusual behavior over the past few years, it doesn’t seem all that strange that Lois Lerner has refused to answer questions in Congress, pleading the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination, while refusing to resign from her $180,000-a-year job (she’s now on administrative leave).   What seems much stranger, but not as surprising as it should, is that so much of the media goes on reporting as fact the partisan political version of a story that never happened.    Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

The outrage against the (fake) IRS Scandal should have a focus directly on the parties who are espousing the perpetration of flack against the Obama Administration Vs. proper and necessary attention to meaning legislation.  If we want a good look at issues that warrant outrage, think of the time,. energy and waste funds associated with the House voted to defund ACORN. The community services organization has been defunct since it was attacked by Fox News, Breitbart Dot Com and every conservative in Congress. I believe ACORN shutdown operations three years ago. 

Let’s close this piece out with a basic syllogism regarding the “fake’ IRS issue.

Citizens United has provided opportunity for unlimited secret contributions to political campaigns. 

A.) The Koch Brothers are major contributors to Citizens United (The organization). 

B.) The Koch Brothers were (and are) Major contributors to the tea party, Freedom Works and others conservative political groups focused solely on strategy, planning and operations to  unseat the Obama Administration and fund future campaigns (2014 and 2016).

C.) Internal Revenue Service Tax Code 501 (c)(4) as shown in the table above allows secret contributions to certified organizations without taxation! 

D.) The number of request for 501 (c)(4) certification increased exponentially after Citizens United (2010). 

Major premise A:  The Koch Brothers are major contributors to Citizens United (The organization).

Major premise B:   The Koch Brothers were (and are) major contributors to the tea party, Freedom Works and others conservative political groups focused solely on strategy, planning and operations to  unseat the Obama Administration (e.g., winning elections).

Minor premise: The Koch Brothers are supporters of ultra conservative causes and contribute millions to conservative campaigns (state and national elections). The millions they contribute are subject to taxation unless hidden in a 501 (c)(4) organization. 

Conclusion: Conservative causes can be advanced via Koch Brothers’ contributions and billions from other secret contributors (especially if untaxed) if the contributions go through the 501 (c)(4) organization.

I posit the IRS was doing its job via deep questioning of organization (Both conservative and liberal) who appeared as seeking certification beyond the scope of the 1959 law, and organization buoyed by the secret contribution freedom of Citizens United.  Thus, the IRS looked to preserve the Union and integrity of our elections from organizations that were and are working to win the Oval Office and state elections.

IRS, 501 (c)(4), Opportunity For Abuse, Greed And Political Malfeanse

A serious problem from the late 1950s that was fueled by the conservatives on the SCOTUS via Citizens United.

www.politicsandlawblog.com

truebornsonsofliberty.blogspot.com

Open Secrets. Educating where others do not dare! Marc Antoine, while you read (if you wish)

I. Latin Quarter

II. Sunland

III. Madrid

________________________________

Outside Spending: Frequently Asked Questions About 501(c)(4) Groups

The number of politically active nonprofits has surged following the 2010 Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC, as has their spending. Most of that growth comes from 501(c)(4) or “social welfare” organizations. Read the guide below to learn more about these groups.

What is a 501(c)(4)?

A 501(c)(4) is a “social welfare” organization, in IRS terminology. In fact, the law requires these groups to be “operated exclusively” for the promotion of social welfare.” But the IRS finalized a regulation in 1959 that allows the groups to participate in some political activity as long as politics isn’t their primary purpose. Many of the most prominent issue groups have long existed as 501(c)(4)s — groups like the National Rifle Association and the Sierra Club.

The unwritten rule is that these groups must spend less than half of their resources on political activities. Critics bemoan the lack of guidelines, but the IRS will only go so far as to say they use the “facts and circumstances” of each case, looking at a variety of factors, to determine whether an organization’s primary purpose is or is not political. Most tax lawyers suggest that, to avoid risk, at least 50.1 percent of their efforts must go toward “social welfare” activities, meaning they must be devoted to “promoting in some way the common good and general welfare of the people of the community,” according to the IRS.

Other 501(c) organizations include 501(c)(3) groups, which are charities that can accept tax-deductible donations. Politics is mostly off-limits for them. Others — 501(c)(5)s (labor groups) and 501(c)(6)s (business associations) — can be politically active, within limits. Donations to these groups aren’t tax-deductible. The numerical designations of these organizations come from the provisions of the Tax Code that apply to them.

What is social welfare? 

Social welfare is a somewhat ambiguous term. According to IRS regulations, a social welfare organization “must operate primarily to further the common good and general welfare of the people of the community (such as by bringing about civic betterment and social improvements).” Because that furthering of common good may require some degree of activism or advocacy, the IRS has determined that “Seeking legislation germane to the organization’s programs is a permissible means of attaining social welfare purposes.”

Involvement in political campaigns is not social welfare activity. But it’s allowed as long as it is less than half of what the organization does.

Examples of groups that have long existed as 501(c)(4) organizations include: the National Rifle Association, the Sierra Club, the League of Conservation Voters, Planned Parenthood and the National Organization for Marriage. Most of these organizations have been active in lobbying — and more recently, since the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United v. FEC, they also have been otherwise involved in politics. But they also pursue other activities related to promoting their cause. Since Citizens United a number of groups that seem to be largely about politics have also emerged, and these top CRP’s list of top-spending political nonprofits. This list includes: Karl Rove’s group, Crossroads GPS; the Koch brothers-affiliated Americans for Prosperity; and the liberal Patriot Majority.

What are the benefits and responsibilities of having 501(c) status? 

501(c) organizations can operate without incurring tax liability. Another major benefit, for many groups, is the ability to collect donations without disclosing donors. That can help a donor to a charitable group feel comfortable that other organizations won’t come knocking at his or her door for similar contributions. The lack of disclosure can also help disguise the true nature of a highly political organization. For instance, the Center for Responsive Politics has found examples of so-called “grassroots” groups that appear to be primarily funded by one wealthy individual. In other cases, corporations have been able to make donations to politically active groups that take controversial stands on hot topics without disclosing to shareholders or customers that they are involved. Perhaps the biggest problem with the nondisclosure is that citizens barraged with political messages may not be able to consider the credibility, and possible motives, of the funders of those messages.

All nonprofits must file 990 tax forms, which are publicly disclosed on sites such as Guidestar. In addition, organizations must give them directly to any member of the public who requests them. These forms detail a group’s revenue, primary activities, major vendors, grant recipients and members of its board of directors. Often they will also disclose the highest-paid employees. Nonprofit groups cannot be in the business of making money for shareholders or any individual. The 990 forms can help the public get a sense of an organization and who may be benefiting from it. Groups are also subject to IRS audits to ensure that they aren’t benefiting any shareholders or individuals. And 501(c)(4) groups may also be scrutinized to ensure they are indeed carrying out social welfare activities and not existing primarily as political groups.

What are the downsides? 

The downside for 501(c)(4)s is that they must abide by certain rules and regulations, and, in theory, oversight by the Internal Revenue Service. For groups that want to be politically active, alternative corporate structures are available, such as super PACs and “527” groups — and those groups aren’t limited to spending just 49.9 percent of their resources on politics. However, they are required to disclose their donors. Essentially, a 501(c)(4) is an inefficient way to spend money politically — unless there is a high premium on keeping the identity of donors secret.

What is the significance of the Citizens United Supreme Court decision for nonprofits? 

It’s true that 501(c)(4)s existed prior to the Citizens United decision, and it’s also true that there were other types of politically active nonprofits in existence, specifically 527 groups, made famous in the 2004 election by the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth organization. However, these groups were limited in how they could spend their money. They could hire lobbyists or spend money to make general ads about topics important to their cause, which many people refer to as “issue ads”, but they couldn’t directly involve themselves in political campaigns. And they had to identify their funders to the public.

The Citizens United decision is best known for allowing corporations to spend money from their general treasuries on political campaigns — so long as they don’t coordinate directly with the candidates they are backing. Nonprofits are corporations, too, and are subject to the same new rules as for-profit corporations. So, with the Citizens United decision, nonprofits were suddenly free to begin spending money to directly advocate for and against specific candidates. Previously, a group like Swiftboat Veterans could create advertisements that encouraged voters to consider the record of a candidate, as it did with 2004 Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, but could not urge viewers to vote for or against him. Citizens United changed that.

Essentially, Citizens United allowed 501(c)(4) groups to participate in political activities just like other groups already had been doing. But, unlike most of the other groups, which are under the oversight of the Federal Election Commission and must disclose their contributors and expenditures, 501(c)(4)s fall are overseen by the IRS. They must make filings with the FEC when they spend money explicitly advocating for or against a candidate, as well as when they buy issue ads that run in the weeks close to an election, but they aren’t required to provide detail about where they’re getting their money or how they’re spending much of it.

Since the Citizens United decision, the number of groups applying for 501(c)(4) status has dramatically increased, more than doubling in the years following the ruling, according to a May 2013 Treasury inspector’s general report. The money spent by these groups on politics — or at least the money we know is being spent (see below) — has also skyrocketed. The Center for Responsive Politics estimates that in the 2012 election, 501(c) groups spent at least $333 million and that’s only the money we can track. That’s an increase of 53 percent from 2008, the last election before Citizens United, when the same type of groups spent just $159 million.

Do we know how 501(c)(4) groups spend their money? 

We know how 501(c)(4) groups spend some of their money. We can see on their 990 forms what major vendors they hire and what groups they give money to. But 501(c)(4) groups often submit vague explanations for how money is spent with vendors, such as “consulting” or “fundraising,” and are not obligated to say what the money purchased with any specificity.

A 501(c)(4) group that spends money explicitly advocating for or against a candidate (known as an independent expenditure) has to report that spending to the FEC.

What is the IRS’ role in enforcing campaign finance law? 

The IRS’ job is not to enforce campaign finance law. Its purpose is to make sure that all of these 501(c) groups qualify for their tax-exempt status. Only a small number of the 501(c) groups that are in existence appear to be active in political campaigns. The reasons for creating this class of groups have nothing to do with enabling them to be politically active.

The IRS scandal of May 2013 arose because agency employees, faced with a rising number of applications for 501(c)(4) status after the Citizens United decision, tried to create ways to weed out groups that seemed overly political. According to the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, they used “inappropriate criteria” — such as searching for the words “patriot” and “tea party” in groups’ names — to identify applications for tax-exempt status for review. To date, though, there has been no in-depth examination of the most politically active 501(c) groups — at least, not one that has been shared with the public.

How could the (c)(4) loophole be closed? 

A number of suggestions have been made to try to fix the problem of political organizations gaming the system and using the (c)(4) loophole to shield the identities of their donors. The most straightforward is to ban 501(c)(4) groups from being involved in politics at all. That is in fact what the law says, but the language was, in effect, weakened when the IRS began applying the “primary purpose” test; that put the IRS in the business of making judgments about what activity is political.

Alternatively, social welfare organizations could be required to disclose the identity of their donors if they participated in political activity. Others have suggested that IRS officials draw a “bright line” delineating exactly how much political activity is acceptable, and then enforce it. The current understanding that groups may spend up to 49.9 percent of their resources on political activity was drawn from rules barring groups from having politics as their primary purpose, but exists nowhere in law or regulations.

While many have no time for such descriptive and detail screeds, that same number will ignore the issue, and they will suffer deeply form their indifference. ~The Pardu

House Republicans Vote Against Students Seeking A College Education! A National Threat

           

Do you every wonder why top social network (e.g., Zuckerberg, Facebook Founder) and high tech software corporations are so much in favor in making employment opportunities more streamlined and factually easier for foreign nationals. 

Have you ever read or heard about how our nation has dropped from leading the world in education to fighting to hold middle ground to avoid lapsing into the basement of an aggregate of countries around the world? 

Help us Learn Don’t Obstruct!

Your House of Representatives doesn’t have the heart nor brain to provide lower interest rate for student loans. Why would the House do such a thing? Answer: it is infested with Republicans!

Technology industry leaders are looking to ship highly trained and highly educated foreign nationals onto their employment roles to offset needs this country cannot fulfill. FWD.us is one such example of the increasingly scrutinized 501(c)(4) organizations with a primary mission as follows:

FWD.us WIKI 

FWD.us is a 501(c)(4) lobbying group based in the United States that aims to lobby and advocate for its version of immigration reform, changes to the US education system to improve science and technology education, and the facilitation of scientific breakthroughs with broad public benefits. It is primarily supported and funded by Silicon Valley entrepreneurs. The initiative is led by principal Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, and its president is Joe Green, a close friend and confidante of Zuckerberg. The group is non-partisan and aims to build a bipartisan consensus around its proposed policies.

The United States no longer turns-out a tens of thousands of educated future professionals to provide a technological framework for our future. If we are not leading in technology we cannot lead in other ares of business and industry.

With recognition that all things educational evolve from science and technology in some form, let’s view a 2:24 minute video that is delineates the extent of the problem. 

The National Math and Science Initiative: STEM Education Statistics (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics)

Challenges Facing STEM Education Today

• U.S. students recently finished 25th in math and 17th in science in the ranking of 31 countries by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

• The U.S. may be short as many as three million high-skills workers by 2018. Two-thirds of those jobs will require at least some post-secondary education. 

•  The competitive edge of the U.S. economy has eroded sharply over the last decade, according to a new study by a non-partisan research group.

• The prestigious World Economic Forum ranks the U.S. as No. 48 in quality of math and science education.

• 25 years ago, the U.S. led the world in high school and college graduation rates. Today, the U.S. has dropped to 20th and 16th.

The problem is serious and nation threatening.  If our dwindling education levels place the nation at the mercy of droves and droves of foreign workers who often do not become citizens and remain in the US, we are literally creating a threat to national defense.  “Nation threatening” should escalate the congressional action to that national concern.

It seems the US House of OZ (Representatives) do not agree with the national threat. 

House GOP Throws College Students Under Bus: Loan Interest Rates Higher and Variable

The House is laden with a majority of GOP Members of Congress.  Yet, the GOP votes to reduce funding for public schools and voted to pass Smarter Solutions for Students Act, HR 1911. They vote against keeping student loan rates at a lowered level, and they consistently speak against public school systems.  Such acts from the Right sends a message they hold no value in education people. Let’s look at how the House does a disservice to its own constituents by comparing most educated states with less educated states.

The least educated states voted for the GOP

We have already done an article on the fact that the “red” states are the real freeloaders and take in more federal dollars than the blue the states.  But let’s take a look at education ranking of states compared to which way the states went in this last election. The Science and Engineering Readiness Index (SERI) measures how high school students are performing in physics and calculus — based on publicly available data, including Advanced Placement scores, National Assessment of Educational Progress reports, teacher certification requirements by state and physics class enrollment data.  Based on SERI, the states that ranked at the bottom of the barrel are (and how they went in the last election): South Carolina – RED Oklahoma – RED Nebraska – RED Nevada – BLUE Arizona – RED New Mexico – BLUE Alabama – RED Louisiana – RED West Virginia – RED Mississippi – RED 8  out of 10 of the LEAST educated states are RED!! Now let’s compare the top 10 most educated states with their voting record: Massachusetts –  Minnesota – BLUE New Jersey – BLUE New Hampshire – BLUE New York- BLUE Virginia- BLUE Maryland – BLUE Connecticut- BLUE Indiana- RED Maine – BLUE Of the 10 most educated states, 9 went blue in this last election.

Empirical evidence the GOP southern geographic stronghold is not the realm of most educated states. Yet, the southern states voters  always vote GOP candidates in office.

Now, how about a visual of unemployment and the earnings case for education high school level and beyond.

People with higher levels of education beyond high school earn much more and experience very low unemployment rates. The graphic shows the direct opposite for the less educated. 

If the southern, southwest states (except New Mexico) and plains states place social issues beyond education of their young, the problem does not remain within their regions; it is  a national problem.  The problem spills across the US like a plague.  Personally, I have no interests in the southern vote setting the path for the United States.

PBS has published an infographic that might surprise some while opening the door for the reality of our penchant for entertainment over mind nourishing and mind building education.

PBS Dot org

AMERICAN GRADUATE — August 13, 2012 

Education Olympics: How Does the U.S. Rank?

BY: NEWS DESK

The United States left the 2012 London Olympics with 104 medals in tow. But how do we stack up against the world when it comes to education? 

According to this infograph by Certification Map, the U.S. — which leads in gold medal count — is ranked seventh in high school graduation rates, trailing countries like Germany, Japan and Great Britain.

www.pbs.org

Read more

The US also has the highest paid CEOs, highest paid professional athletes, and the highest paid entertainers.  Two if those three groups relate to entertainment along with gold Olympic Medals. Entertainment is such a short-term endorphin-like experience.

The beat jobs in America require education well beyond a high school diploma (Click for larger view). Even for those with no interest in these jobs, there has to be a recognition that these jobs are foundational jobs.   The set the foundation for all jobs in the nation.

The point is clear. GOP obstruction to attainment of education for people who cannot afford college, is unfathomable and is yet another example of typical GOP short-term ideology. We received a solid reminder of the lack of GOP support for attainment of higher education from none other than one who certainly received the benefit of “parent paid education” all the way through his Harvard MBA.

I wondered how many of those kids standing behind Romney had parents who could afford to LEND them money for college tuition, room and board and other expenses.  Romney’s paradigm is so fixed on nonsupport of higher education he cannot twist his brain mention federal student loan programs. In fact, some in the GOP want to stop all student loans.

H.R. 1911 passed the House of OZ. It will never past the Senate nor receive the president’s signature to become law.  Why not spend time and effort on a jobs bill? But, “no” a favorable unemployment rate helps the Democrats.  Votes from the House, at times, makes me wonder if they are  putting bills up for vote to show financial supporters they (Congress) is earning its funding from those groups. Read that again southerners.

One last look at the long-term impact of an under-educated society.

 EducationNews.org

 

We have to know these same sets of information are available for House Republicans and their staff.   Question. Do you think there are elements in the nation that want student loans at a higher, not lower, rate?  “Bet Your Bippy” there are such entities.  Ask your House of Representatives.

Consumerist.com

Open Secrets: 501 (c) (4) A Veritable Wonderland For Special Interests

We at the TPI regularly visit Open Secrets. You may have noticed we use the site for details related to government and lobbyists, plus much much more.  The following piece is as balanced a view of the its 501(c)(4). The information in the piece is a form of personal validation of my thoughts the IRS was performing its job in questioning and investigating special interests applicants (Right and Left). 

“An informed populace makes intelligent decisions.” ~The Pardu

Content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial- Share Alike 3.0 United States License  by OpenSecrets.org.

OpenSecrets.org’s Resources on Politically Active Tax-Exempt Groups

By Russ Choma on May 15, 2013 5:14 PM 

The first congressional hearing triggered by the news that the Internal Revenue Service inappropriately targeted tea party groups for additional scrutiny begins Friday, and it’s clear the issue isn’t going away anytime soon. 

The Center for Responsive Politics has been intensively researching and writing about politically active nonprofits — also known as 501(c)(4) organizations, or, more colloquially, “dark money” groups — for more than a year. Since the 2010 Citizens United Supreme Court decision freed them to participate more directly in electoral politics, they have been used to pour money into the system at an unprecedented rate.

There has been an explosion of spending by nonprofit groups over the last three election cycles, from less than $17 million in 2006 to well over $300 million in 2012.

(click to enlarge)

These groups, unlike the more commonly known super PACs, are not required to divulge the names of their donors, and much of their spending is unreported, too. Their annual tax filings with the IRS list how much money they have, who their officers are and the recipients of any grants they may have made.

But when they spend their money directly in support of or opposition to a candidate, they must report to the Federal Election Commission. FEC data collected and analyzed by OpenSecrets.org shows that in the 2012 election alone, politically active nonprofits reported spending more than $308 million. Many millions more were likely spent on “issue ads” that escaped reported rules.

If you follow that link, you’ll notice none of the organizations at the top of our list are tea party groups. In fact, they have remained relatively small players in the game. 

What we do know is that many of these groups on the list are conservative in nature — though they come in many flavors of conservative. There are several important liberal groups active in this area, as well, but right-leaning groups dominate. About 85 percent of the money that was spent by nonprofits in the 2012 cycle, as reported to the FEC, was paid out by conservative groups.

(click to enlarge)

We’ve also applied old-fashioned reporting in our effort to bring these groups to the public’s attention, in particular with our Shadow Money Trail series. Despite the current concern about IRS employees applying too much scrutiny to certain groups because of their political slant, we’ve actually found many instances where political operatives from across the spectrum seem to be taking advantage of the fact that the IRS generally applies very little scrutiny to these entities.

By painstakingly going through public tax returns filed by tax-exempt groups, we have been able to trace how some of the money has flowed between them. We have posted that information (here’s an example) when we have it. 

Some of the topics we’ve covered in this series:

• How conservative group American Commitment seemed to make $10 million disappear by churning money between its various related groups.  

• How Obama’s dark money allies make big payments to political consultants. 

• The phenomenon of dark money mailboxes — social welfare organizations that act as way stations for dark money and have few or no activities of their own. 

• How one prominent liberal group churns money through a confusing web of similarly named 501(c)(4)s and 527 groups.

There are a host of other stories on our Shadow Money Trail page, including “Shadow Money Magic,” our five-part report on how some of these groups game the IRS.