njlauren
Posts: 1577
Joined: 10/1/2011
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Yes, that's the article I was quoting from
Ron, you as usual will just defend democrats right or wrong - so your opinion and vulgarity have no relevance.
For those that are a little less biased - there is quite a bit of irony to this. Turns out Pwilfred has some familiarity with this issue. He's the fellow that defended President Obama's church when it (allegedly) violated its 501 requirements by President Obama's speaking engagements.
It was found, by a friendly court, to be excused on the technicality that this was before he announced his candidacy. Of course, one could argue that since his senatorial reelection was still operational that it was, of course, a violation of law. Or you could argue that since the actual engagement occured after the candidacy was announced it was a (flagrant) violation of law. But hey.. good thing the guy in charge of making that determination is... why its you!
And my - its a good thing we don't leave it to staff to make those determinations.
But hey... if we say "the most transparent administration in history" often enough people have to believe you!
Anyway some interesting background on pwilfred:
During his tenure at WilmerHale, he helped defend Obama's former church, Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, and its then-pastor Rev. Jeremiah Wright after the IRS began looking at then-presidential candidate Obama's speaking engagement at the church.
Tax exempt non-profit organizations are legally prevented from participating in political campaign activities. Wilkins and other attorneys at WilmerHale took on the case pro bono and were able to successfully argue that the church offered their invitation to Obama before he announced his presidential candidacy.
Ironically, the church was accused for violating its 501 tax-exempt status. Several Tea Party and conservative groups claimed they were denied a similar designation by the IRS as part of the current scandal.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/07/19/republicans-question-obama-appointee-role-in-irs-scandal/#ixzz2ZX54Usqi
It would be nice if you understood the laws in question before you make statements like that, because it makes your arguments even less true.
Churches are 501c3 non profits and as such they are not allowed to be involved with candidates campaigns, they cannot campaign for politicians, they cannot use church funds or facilities to campaign, and they cannot do things like get out the vote campaigns targeted at one candidate, and preachers and church officials are not allowed to endorse candidates from the pulpit, they can express their opinions about candidates and parties, but they cannot, for example, as many right wing churches have done, tell their congregants things like 'either you vote for the GOP, or you go to hell", that is over the line. Churches can advocate on issues, like for example put ads out supporting same sex marriage or against it, but they cannot actively support a political candidate. The Catholic church stepped over the line in the last election, several bishops came out and told their members to vote GOP, and the evangelicals have gotten caught fundraising for candidates, driving people to the polls whom they know were likely to vote for the GOP, and also diverting church funds to support canvassing and such, which is illegal.
The tea party issue is a very new category, a 501c4, and that covers groups that ostensibly are for 'social advocacy' for positions. According to the rules, these are supposed to be used strictly to 'educate' people on issues, they are supposed to be about disseminating a position, what they are not supposed to be is aligned with any particular candidate. The biggest issue with 501c4's is that they don't have to divulge who their donors are, for example, with tea party groups, the Koch Brothers have given 10's of millions....what is not allowed is that money to be used to advocate for specific candidates or working with a specific political party and the law says the IRS is supposed to figure this out. It is ripe for abuse, because the rules are nebulous, and quite frankly, it is a way for rich donors to give to extremist groups and not have to pay the price for it, they want to stay in the shadows, afraid that it will backfire on them, it is another case of the subjugation of democracy, thanks to the Supreme Court.
BTW, it is not illegal for a candidate to speak at a church, that is the lie Fox News loves telling time and again, as long as the church will allow other candidates to speak as well, they don't have to invite the other candidates, but if they ask they are to be given time to speak.
This argument is what is known as a shotgun argument in debating, you throw together two totally different things in an attempt to prove something, the regulation of 501c3's is not the same thing as 501c4's, and of the two, the 501c4 is so ill defined that by its very nature it is going to be abused.
|
RE: Democrats subjected TEA party applications to Polit... - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread