Skip to comments.New IRS rules would scuttle tea parties: 'All they did was shift tactics'
Posted on 01/20/2014 9:15:43 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Constitutional law experts tell WND the IRS hasnt stopped targeting conservative groups, including tea parties. Its just trying a different approach, one that may be impossible to stop.
Many have heard of the presidents repeated promises last week to bypass Congress to accomplish his goals, saying Im going to act on my own if Congress is deadlocked. Ive got a pen, to take executive actions where Congress wont, and Ive got a telephone to rally folks around he country on this mission.
But another effort to fundamentally transform the American political system has gone little noticed and barely reported by the mainstream media, and it has many conservatives alarmed about its possible effect on elections and free speech, because they are virtually powerless to prevent it.
On Nov. 29, 2013, the day after Thanksgiving, the IRS quietly proposed regulations that critics say would drastically change the nature of elections and severely limit the power of conservative grassroots organizations, such as tea parties, by redefining what is considered tax-exempt political activity.
The proposal would change the rules for a type of tax-exempt political organization called a 501(c)(4), which typically engage in citizen education and grassroots lobbying....
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
We’ve shown some amazing forbearance thus far. Too much for our own good, probably.
political organizing must not rely on the largesse of the government, but the dedication and committment of its believers and their willingness to back their ideas with their money. to heck with tax deductions
Agreed; but the uniparty intends to make it as difficult as possible to interrupt their vision for our future:
|IN THE GRIM DARKNESS OF THE FAR FUTURE THERE IS ONLY GOVERNMENT.
|The Tao of Republican Orthodoxy
|The Modern Democratic Party & You
The solution is:
Do NOT apply for tax exempt ANYTHING.
I agree with you! (See post #8)
The Wall Street Journal has been doing a great job trying to educate us on this one. I think it was Kimberley Strassel who did the latest one, on how the changes in the regs were nonnegotiable during the recent spending-bill follies, no matter what the repubs offered to trade for their disappearance.
Shows how very important it is to the rats who are sitting pretty right now to kneecap us in this next election.
One of my favorite verses from Proverbs: “He who digs a pit shall fall into it.”
I haven’t understood why they need tax exempt status. Can’t they be a normal C corp and do political activity?
Good question about ‘why not just be a “regular” c corp’.
But I question having to form a corporation at ALL.
Yet “Organizing for America” — or whatever it is — gets a free pass.
Who can train these conservative organizations on how to set up without tax-exempt status ..??
And .. people are going to be compelled to donate .. even if we are required to list their names.
Where can we get this info .. it has to be easy to read and easy to implement. We’re way behind the game and we need to get started right away.
LET’s BEAT THEM AT THEIR OWN GAME.
Not sure what you meant by this part:
“And .. people are going to be compelled to donate .. even if we are required to list their names.”
That will be the way to go during the Obama years. Don’t expect fair treatment from these people, cause if they don’t feel like respecting your legal right of assembly on tax free status, it won’t be happening. Fine, play your little games, why don’t you. We of The Tea will continue to form and develop our groups anyway. This duplicity and conspiracy of wrongdoing: only makes our task that much more urgent
don’t expect the Republican Party to life a finger
The silence on this is deafening,I expect Obama to do this,but the Republican establishment is complicit in their silence,does not surprise me,Republican establishment could have given the speech by New York’s Governor Cuomo,no conservatives welcome here
The original Tea Party folks didn’t have tax exemption.
That’s that natural result of a lawless, self-serving government.
The people start ignoring its edicts and start getting things done in spite of it.
Yep, like I said in my other post,
” the original tea party folks didn’t have tax exemption..”
Why should we?
I’m thinking of that line from Wargames:
“The only way to win is not to play the game”
And part of the solution is in plain view.....
we are citizens of a free republic (whether 0 and his minions like it or not)
Break it down to cells like the French resistance. Small groups operating on their own but communicating with other groups.
Meanwhile, the usual moths from Congress....
HA! Do you really think that the republicans actually tried to do anything about this? They hate the tea party more than the democrats!
funny. Pull the other one.
But they also did not have an income tax, so in a sense everybody was exempt back then.
Not playing the game would be nice, but also tricky. The IRS and the FEC play their side of the game while armed.
liability protection is the usual reason for having a corp.
“political organizing must not rely on the largesse of the government, but the dedication and committment of its believers and their willingness to back their ideas with their money. to heck with tax deductions”
Exactly. Also, I would think that if, for instance, the Tea Party, whatever that is, would have taxable income if they show a profit. I would think that if they did then “they” should pay taxes. But, why would such an organization ever show a profit? I’m sure no tax lawyer, but if at the end of the year the “tea party” has excess contributions left over wouldn’t that be income as far as the IRS is concerned?
Or, does 501 designation have nothing to do with taxable income?
If that is the case then, Never Mind.........
Tell Kimberley Strassel. She’s the one who reported it.
Yes, it’s like an unsuccessful coup. We just go forth and multiply in other ways. You can’t kill the truth.
If you get non-profit status, you don’t have to list your donors. One of the main reasons the Tea Party groups wanted to go that route.
However, if they just file as a political group - they will have to list all the names and the amounts donated .. which will require the group to compel people to donate .. just because they will not have non-profit status.
Does that clarify it ..??
As an aside .. are you really a “highlander” .. because I am. Mom’s family came from Scotland. Plaids are black watch and Royal Stewart.
My point was, why file any kind of status at all; for profit, non profit....
File neither one.
As for liability insurance, what exactly is going to be sued about?
If someone from a group says “go to media site A and see what candidate B said, and compare that to what the constitution says” is there anything candidate B can do?
We do it here all the time.
All it costs is our cablemodem/internet access, and we buy that anyway.
If people meet at a restaurant and pay their own way, no worries about somebody slipping on the sidewalk in front of the house.
(Side note to cyberant: yup I’m Highlander Scots on one side of the family also; clan Donald from the isle of Skye )
The Tea Party lives only in the minds of its members. It cannot be destroyed by mere tinkering with campaign finance laws. No matter what the Left tries, its opposition will always be there.
-— but if at the end of the year the tea party has excess contributions left over wouldnt that be income as far as the IRS is concerned? -—
“Non-profits” hide their profits in high salaries and lavish digs. Harvard has a $30 billion endowment, yet doesn’t make a “profit.” It’s quite a scam. And it buys a lot of loyalty to the government.
I’m pretty sure it has to do with raising funds.
You have to be able to account for the money - if it’s for political activity.
but, the dems (in the IRS) are using the profit/non-profit status as a way of keeping the Tea Party repubs from raising funds and being able to keep their donor list private. The reason for keeping donors private is because the dems are known for harassing or targeting repubs who support the Tea Party groups.
As for “liability insurance” .. I don’t have a clue what was said about that .. it wasn’t included in my comments.