Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Alighieri who wrote (716024)	5/17/2013 4:36:17 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1583503

>> That the WH orchestrated the IRS treatment of these 501s? I doubt that. But it raises the difficult question of why this woman was promoted to this new, important position, given bonuses of $100K over three years, when she was apparently doing the dirty work of the political operatives. It certainly suggests more culpability than the absence of that information would. >> These organizations on both sides were breaking the law. Read the criteria for tax exemption status for 501s and tell me that the tea party is not a politically motivated organization? No they were not breaking the law. The regulations under 501(c)(4) are very clear that substantial lobbying is permitted. And they certainly didn't break the law by merely filing an application, so long as they were truthful in the application. The question is what is the primary purpose of their organization. A "Tea Party" organization could certainly qualify under the provisions of 501(c)(4). The law is what the regulations (augmented by the court cases) say it is. The Treasury has interpreted the statute to mean this, with the recognition that an "exclusively social welfare" organization may well have lobbying as part of its objective. But it cannot support a particular candidate. AARP, for example, is organized under 501(c)(4). Do you think AARP shouldn't be allowed to lobby? What about NAACP? Your conclusion (and that of others such as Lawrence O'Donnel and other liberals) is what happens when people who don't understand how tax law works start trying to interpret the meaning of the statute. While the statute is authoritative, the regulations determine how it is to be implemented. And these things cannot, and will not, be changed overnight. This has been the law for 50 or more years.