Under that headline, Mother Jones responded to the proposed new IRS rules on 501(c)(4) non-profits with four reasons why they wouldn't matter much. For one, the rules don't define what "primarily" means, so there's no guideline for how much political activity is too much. Also the proposed rules apply only to 501(c)(4) non-profits, not any of the other dark money pipes -- for example, the rules don't apply to 501(c)(6) non-profits, which the Koch Brothers used to distribute $250 million in dark money in 2012. And in any case, the proposed rules are only "proposed" and may never be enacted.
Mother Jones also points out that the IRS, in the midst of recent budget cuts, job cuts, and political attacks, is afraid of seeming partisan and so prefers to do as little enforcement as possible.
Mother Jones does not mention that none of their analysis cuts to the basic problem in the law: that no 501(c)(4) non profit organization is allowed by law to do ANY political activity. There is no mention of the obvious Gordian Knot solution to the problem: scrap the rules, just enforce the law. Nobody wants that. Not Republicans, because they're awash in dark money to such an extent they hardly know where to spend it. And not Democrats, who get enough dark money to keep hope alive that some day they're get as much as Republicans.
Adding to this bipartisan morass of meaninglessness, the Republican majority of the House Ways and Means Committee, on a straight party line vote on February 18, approved H.R.3865 and sent it to the full house for a vote that may or may not happen. Introducing the bill a month earlier, committee chair Dave Camp began by asserting a new bogus argument in this already largely fact-free debate:
"Over the past six months, this Committee has investigated the Internal Revenue Service's targeting of conservative groups. Though our investigation is not complete, and the IRS still has many more documents to provide to the Committee, we have discovered a concerted effort by the IRS to limit the ability of those targeted conservative groups to operate and engage in constitutionally protected public debate."
Republican: First Amendment demands subsidy for rich folks' speech
When Dave Camp says "constitutionally protected public debate," he's calling on the free speech rights of the Constitution's First Amendment, and he's doing it with the purest dishonesty. There is NO free speech issue involved with 501(c)(4) organizations. People in those organizations can say whatever they want (usual restrictions apply) and suffer no penalty.
The sole relevant point of tax-exempt status is that it provides a government subsidy for the approved activities. That subsidy takes the form of reduced taxes for donors to tax-exempt organizations, a donor class dominated by the rich. It other words it's another form of welfare for the wealthy, justified by the argument that the money is going to support the general welfare as recommended in the Constitution's preamble.
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
