1. Attention: We have put together a thread with tips and a tutorial video to help with using the new software. Please take a moment to check out the thread here: Trapshooters.com Tutorial & Help Video.
    Dismiss Notice

DOJ begged Judge keep fox in dark abt. monitor

Discussion in 'Politics, Elections & Legislation' started by Barrelbulge(Fl), May 25, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Barrelbulge(Fl)

    Barrelbulge(Fl) Banned User Banned TS Supporters

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2007
    Messages:
    11,666
    Location:
    West Central Florida
    The Justice Department begged a federal judge to not tell Fox News reporter James Rosen that it was tracking his telephone calls and emails in a probe regarding a national security leak.

    U.S. Attorney Ron Machen argued in 2010 that the traditional 30-day notice period did not apply to Rosen as Justice secretly monitored his Gmail account, according to new exhibits unsealed this week and disclosed by The Hill.

    Related: Holder Personally OK'd Fox Reporter's Warrant

    “Where, as here, the government seeks such contents through a search warrant, no notice to the subscriber or customer of the e-mail account is statutorily required or necessary,” Machen wrote in a June 2010 motion. “Thus, this court's indication on the face of the warrant that delayed notice of 30 days to the customer and subscriber was permissible was unnecessary.”

    Machen, through another request granted by the court, stopped Google from telling Rosen that Justice was spying on his e-mail account, the Hill reports.




    Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/doj-fox-monitoring/2013/05/24/id/506349?s=al&promo_code=13A01-1#ixzz2ULlFHz1C
     
  2. bigdogtx

    bigdogtx Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2006
    Messages:
    10,650
    It just keeps getting deeper and deeper........
     
  3. Shooting Coach

    Shooting Coach Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Messages:
    8,351
    Location:
    Nashville Tn
  4. Barrelbulge(Fl)

    Barrelbulge(Fl) Banned User Banned TS Supporters

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2007
    Messages:
    11,666
    Location:
    West Central Florida
    On Fox this morning apparently Shumer, Franken and five other Dems wrote a letter to the IRS asking them to check into conservative groups. It is getting deeper. Bulge.
     
  5. 548

    548 Guest

    Hon. Douglas H. Shulman

    Commissioner

    Internal Revenue Service

    Room 3000 IR

    1111 Constitution Avenue, N.W.

    Dear Commissioner Shulman:

    We write to ask the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) to immediately change the administrative framework for enforcement of the tax code as it applies to groups designated as “social welfare” organizations. These groups receive tax and other advantages under section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code (hereinafter, “IRC” or the “Code”), but some of them also are engaged in a substantial amount of political campaign activity. As you know, we sent a letter last month expressing concerns about the 501(c)(4) issue; an investigation this week by the New York Times has uncovered new, specific problems on how c)4)s conduct business. We wanted to address those new concerns in this letter.

    IRS regulations have long maintained that political campaign activity by a 501(c)(4) entity must not be the “primary purpose” of the organization. These regulations are intended to implement the statute, which requires that such organizations be operated exclusively for the public welfare. But we think the existing IRS regulations run afoul of the law since they only require social welfare activities to be the 'primary purpose' of a nonprofit when the Code says this must be its 'exclusive' purpose. In recent years, this daylight between the law and the IRS regulations has been exploited by groups devoted chiefly to political election activities who operate behind a facade of charity work.

    A related concern, raised in a March 7th New York Times article, concerns whether certain nonprofits may be soliciting corporate contributions that are then treated by the company as a business expense eligible for a tax deduction. The Times wrote: “Under current law, there is little to no way to tell whether contributions are being deducted, especially because many of the most political companies are privately held.” This potential abuse distorts the objectives of vital revenue mechanisms and undermines the faith that we ask citizens to place in their electoral system.

    We propose that the IRS make three administrative changes to curtail these questionable practices and bring IRS tax regulations back into alignment with the letter and spirit intended by those who crafted the Code:

    · First, we urge the IRS to adopt a bright line test in applying its “primary purpose” regulation that is consistent with the Code’s 501(c)(4) exclusivity language. The IRS currently only requires that the purpose of these non-profits be “primarily” related to social welfare activities, without defining what “primarily” means. This standard should be spelled out more fully by the IRS. Some have suggested 51 percent as an appropriate threshold for establishing that a nonprofit is adhering to its mission, but even this number would seem to allow for more political election activity than should be permitted under the law. In the absence of clarity in the administration of section 501(c)(4), organizations are tempted to abuse its vagueness, or worse, to organize under section 501(c)(4) so that they may avail themselves of its advantages even though they are not legitimate social welfare organizations. If the IRS does not adopt a bright line test, or if it adopts one that is inconsistent with the Code’s exclusivity language, then we plan to pursue legislation codifying such a test.

    · Second, such organizations should be further obligated to document in their 990 IRS form the exact percentage of their undertakings dedicated to “social welfare.” Organizations should be required to “show their math” to demonstrate that political election activities and other statutorily limited or prohibited activities do not violate the “primary purpose” regulation.

    · Third, 501(c)(4) organizations should be required to state forthrightly to potential donors what percentage of a donation, if any, may be taken as a business expense deduction. As the New York Times reported in its March 7tharticle, some of these organizations do not currently inform donors whether a contribution is tax deductible as a business expense at all.

    The IRS should already possess the authority to issue immediate guidance on this matter. We urge the IRS to take these steps immediately to prevent abuse of the tax code by political groups focused on federal election activities. But if the IRS is unable to issue administrative guidance in this area then we plan to introduce legislation to accomplish these important changes.

    Sincerely,

    Senators Charles E. Schumer, Michael Bennet, Sheldon Whitehouse, Jeff Merkley, Tom Udall, Jeanne Shaheen and Al Franken
     
  6. 548

    548 Guest

    Bulge, there is the letter. ^ Where does it say "conservative groups"?
     
  7. Catpower

    Catpower Molon Labe TS Supporters

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    10,228
    Location:
    In the Cabana
    Right after sincerely, read their names
     
  8. ou.3200

    ou.3200 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    1,489
    Maybe it is here 548, this is the article Schumer, et al, cite:

    The New York Times, The Opinion Pages
    EDITORIAL
    The I.R.S. Does Its Job
    Published: March 7, 2012

    Taxpayers should be encouraged by complaints from Tea Party chapters applying for nonprofit tax status at being asked by the Internal Revenue Service to prove they are “social welfare” organizations and not the political activists they so obviously are.
    Related News
    Scrutiny of Political Nonprofits Sets Off Claim of Harassment (March 7, 2012)

    Connect With Us on Twitter
    For Op-Ed, follow @nytopinion and to hear from the editorial page editor, Andrew Rosenthal, follow @andyrNYT.
    Tea Party supporters claim they are being politically harassed with extensive I.R.S. questionnaires. But the service properly contends that it must ensure that these groups are “primarily” engaged in social welfare, not political campaigning, to merit tax exemption under section 501(c)(4) of the tax code.

    Such I.R.S. inquiries are long overdue and should be applied across the board to the growing number of organizations, allied with the major political parties, that are also ludicrously posing as “social welfare” groups. Legitimate social welfare organizations are allowed limited political activity. But these political offshoots are using that tax status in a transparent ploy to keep big donors secret while funneling the money to campaigns. Chief among these groups are American Crossroads, the campaign machine created by Republican guru Karl Rove, and Priorities USA, the Democratic counterpart founded by former White House aides, now openly encouraged by President Obama as he runs for re-election.

    These groups, which already have 501(c)(4) status, should be as thoroughly investigated as any Tea Party chapter applying for that tax exempt status. So should two other blatant offenders: the conservative American Action Network, a “social welfare” claimant reported by the Center for Public Integrity to have spent more than 80 percent of its expenditures on the 2010 elections; and Americans Elect, a third-party effort enjoying “social welfare” secrecy as it secures ballot space across the nation.

    All these groups should be operating as political organizations required to disclose their donors under the law. Blatant abuses of tax law and common sense are part of the laissez-faire dynamic that is driving the 2012 campaigns. The I.R.S. must not flinch from its duty to enforce the tax code and root out political operatives who are abusing the law and conning taxpayers and voters.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.