quote:

(4)
(A) Civic leagues or organizations not organized for profit but operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare, or local associations of employees, the membership of which is limited to the employees of a designated person or persons in a particular municipality, and the net earnings of which are devoted exclusively to charitable, educational, or recreational purposes.

(B) Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to an entity unless no part of the net earnings of such entity inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

You'll believe any partisan hack as long as the lies favor cons.

In reality the IRS's proposed new rules bring it more in line with what the law actually says.

What the law actually says:

quote:

(4)
(A) Civic leagues or organizations not organized for profit but operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare, or local associations of employees, the membership of which is limited to the employees of a designated person or persons in a particular municipality, and the net earnings of which are devoted exclusively to charitable, educational, or recreational purposes.

(B) Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to an entity unless no part of the net earnings of such entity inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/501

So no, no amount of whining by cons will change the fact that political organizations advocating for candidates are legal 501(c)4 organizations.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

You'll believe any partisan hack as long as the lies favor cons.

In reality the IRS's proposed new rules bring it more in line with what the law actually says.

What the law actually says:

quote:

(4)
(A) Civic leagues or organizations not organized for profit but operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare, or local associations of employees, the membership of which is limited to the employees of a designated person or persons in a particular municipality, and the net earnings of which are devoted exclusively to charitable, educational, or recreational purposes.

(B) Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to an entity unless no part of the net earnings of such entity inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/501

So no, no amount of whining by cons will change the fact that political organizations advocating for candidates are legal 501(c)4 organizations.

But you see its not the cons that are whining for change. Its the liberals, hence the new proposed regulations which, of course will get ramrodded through despite citizen protest and then will go to court and will, again, be shot down. Just like the last three attempts.

I'm well aware of many many liberal 501c(4) groups.

You know: Organizing for Action (formerly known as Obama for America)
Priorities USA, an electoral vehicle started by former Obama staffers.
Patriot Majority USA
Citizens for Strength and Security
American Bridge 21st Century Foundation
NAACP

And on and on. I have never heard a conservative argue that these groups need to be regulated. Why is it that liberals want to shutdown teaparty groups or crossroads? Hmmm?