Skip to main content

What isn't getting reported with regard to the IRS - the 501(c)(4) loophole and Citizens United ruling

More information needs to come to light regarding the recent outbreak of news regarding the IRS for me to fully conclude on the matter. However, at this point, I have a feeling that like with many conservatives calling Benghazi a massive cover-up and scandal being quite an exaggeration, the IRS ordeal is also getting blown out-of-proportion.

What seems to be getting ignored by a very large majority of the media is the the effect the 2010 Citizens United ruling had on this whole process. After the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Citizens United by a count of 5 to 4, the number of groups applying for 501(c)(4) status rose from 1,500 in 2010 to 3,400 in 2012 - more than twice the number reported just two years earlier, prior to the Citizens United ruling. For those that don't know, 501(c)(4) status is the section of the federal tax code which governs nonprofit groups whom are dedicated to "social welfare."

Given that definition, such groups are prohibited from being "primarily engaged" in political activity, yet that very definition is quite vague, which paves the way for a potential loophole, allowing for more groups to apply for a tax-exempt status. Due to the sharp increase in the number of such groups applying for tax-exempt status and the before-mentioned rule which prohibits giving 501(c)(4) status to groups whom are primarily engaged in political activity, these were likely two very large factors in the IRS targeting a significant rise in such conservative groups.

What should be looked at by the president, Congresspeople, and people in general whom were angered by the before-mentioned reports is closing the 501(c)(4) loophole and overturning the Citizens United ruling. Unless that happens, there will likely be similar such reports in the future.

Lastly, if Congressional Republicans want to use this story in an attempt to rile their base and motivate them to vote in the 2014 midterm elections, let's get something straight here - the IRS has targeted liberal groups in the not-too-distant past as well as conservative ones. Conservative groups aren't the only "victims" of the IRS.

Just last year, the IRS revoked the tax-exempt status of liberal group Emerge America, because it was too focused on benefiting the Democratic Party.

In George W. Bush's years in office, the IRS targeted churches with liberal leanings as well as the NAACP, Greenpeace, and other such liberal groups. Yet, for some strange reason, this story didn't receive nearly as much anger from Democratic Congresspeople or nearly as much attention from the media.

Neither party is thrilled with this report and they shouldn't be. However, instead of pointing fingers at one another and running the risk of this very event occurring again in the future, they should sit down, work together, and find a way to close the before-mentioned loophole by better defining the line between political activity and social welfare, as well as overturn the Citizens United ruling, so we are less apt to reading a similar report four years from now.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/05/irs-tea-party-scandal-congress-nonprofit-obama

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/05/14/2006851/how-real-disclosure-laws-could-help-fix-the-irs-problem/

http://www.salon.com/2013/05/14/when_the_irs_targeted_liberals/

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57584356/irs-chief-we-should-have-done-better/

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"