The $1B sure looks like nobody was hindered. Not hindered by lack of 501(c)4 status. Seems like you're screaming bloody murder where there is none.
Wrong. You claimed that Tea Party groups raised $1b. That doesn't seem to be the case. Why are you lying?
Whatever. The non-501(c)4 groups raised and spent that much. I am not seeing they had an issue raising and spending money. The non 501(c)4 status did not prevent them from doing so. Or the number would be $0. Do you want Soros to be able to donate any amount anonymously? Answer it. Do you think the donors to these Tea Party groups should be able to write it off as a charitable deduction? Answer it. You argue for both.
Denny, you are losing your shit. Your posts are incoherent. Provide a legit link for your one billion spent by Tea Party groups claim or stand down. Hint, Rove is not Tea Party. They hate each other.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterjr...-501c4-damned-if-they-do-damned-if-they-dont/ IRS And 501(c)(4) Damned If They Do Damned If They Don't Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. While heads role at the IRS for allegedly picking on Tea Party groups, the agency is being sued by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) for generally being too easy on 501(c)(4) organizations engaging in politics. The suit, Gill v. Department of Treasury focuses on the unsuccessful campaign of Dr. David Gill for the Illinois 13th Congressional District. According to CREW, Doctor Gill was favored to win the race. Then along came the American Action Network which spent $1.5 million dollars on advertising attacking him, falsely accusing him of opposing Medicare. So why is the suit against the IRS ? That’s what the IRS is asking, claiming that CREW and Doctor Gill do not have standing to sue the IRS. If they are going to sue somebody, they should sue American Action Network. My good friend, Bob Baty would be stressed with me, if I did not point out that this is the problem that the Freedom From Religion Foundation faced in challenging the parsonage exemption, which allows tax free housing allowances to “ministers of the gospel”. If the IRS picks on you, you generally have recourse to the courts. The people who were whining about how long it was taking to get their exempt status approved because somebody in Cincinnati reasoned that if an organization refers to itself as a “party”, maybe it needs to be reviewed for political activity, could have sued once 270 days had gone by. None of them did. Go figure.
http://www.hulu.com/watch/491723?playlist_id=1739 [video]http://www.hulu.com/watch/491723?playlist_id=1739[/video]
Anonymous Cincinnati IRS official: “Everything comes from the top. http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifes...93c60e-bd81-11e2-97d4-a479289a31f9_print.html
You said Tea Party groups raised over $1b, you've yet to link it, yet you're calling me a fool. Classic.
I honestly don't know what the fuck you're talking about. I see nothing about $970b in your excerpt or in your article.
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/11/most-expensive-election-history-numbers/58745/ $970 million The estimated amount spent by outside groups during the 2012 cycle, according to Federal Election Commission data. "The increase has largely been driven by rapidly increased spending among 'super PACs' and outside groups that can raise unlimited amounts of money from donors," reported The New York Times' Nicholas Confessore. (I'm handing you a clue, use it... $970M, not $970B).
An even better find. $203M spent in just the final 2 months of the campaign by those groups who want to be 501(c)4 http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/31/total-cost-of-election-could-be-6-billion/ While super PACs — political committees that sprang into being after the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United ruling — spent at least $539.4 million through Oct. 31, hundreds of millions of dollars more are being spent below the radar by groups that do not register with the Federal Election Commission and purport to focus on educational, not political, activities. Such groups spent at least $203 million in the last two months, a window during which federal law requires formal disclosure of any expenditures that mention a candidate, and they spent even more earlier in the campaign cycle, on “issue ads” that are not subject to disclosure. Measured merely by the spending that is disclosed, three of the top six outside groups in 2012 are issue groups that are not required to publicly reveal their donors.
Yes, and you're assuming that "outside groups" are all Tea Party. It's a ridiculous premise, just as your posts are ridiculous and illogical in this thread. Are you saying that every dollar of the $970m is from Tea Party groups? Because if you are, then you're an idiot.
Not being 501(c)4 these groups managed to spend $970M. Whatever the IRS did was not harassment, since these groups could raise and spend $970M (an all time record). It doesn't have to be $970M spent by the tea party groups. They raised and spent as much as they could with or without 501(c)4 status. With or without govt. scrutiny of their 501(c)4 application. The facts aren't on your side. You can cry "Nixon" till you're blue in the face, but it doesn't make anything reported so far even resemble what Nixon did. Prove I'm wrong. You can't.
