Obama Administration Attempts to Take Away Freedom of Speech for Conservative Groups

More proof and details as to the targeting of Tea Party and conservatives and attempts to curtail their freedom of speech. In addition.....it's notable to state that even the liberal ACLU and UNIONS are against the Democrats attempts to suddenly "change the rules" in order to keep conservatives out of the political process and silence them.....because they fear it will also hurt them!! So, it's good to note that at least some liberals KNOW what's going on here. Taking away freedom of speech??? It cannot...and will not happen here!

Remarks from Congressman Camp of the Ways and Means Committee:

Camp Opening Statement: H.R. 3865, “Stop Targeting of Political Beliefs by the IRS Act of 2014”
(Remarks as Prepared)

Washington, Feb 11 | 0 comments
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.

Some in Washington have tried to sweep this under the rug, calling the IRS targeting an attempt to “streamline determinations” that was based in “confusion” about the rules. That rhetoric does not match the reality of what this investigation has uncovered so far:
Before February 2010, the IRS was processing and approving Tea Party cases within three months without Washington, DC intervention.
Tea Party cases were flagged due to “media attention” in February 2010, not as a result of any confusion as to how to interpret 501(c)(4) law.
Additionally, we now know that the IRS targeted not only right-leaning applicants, but also right-leaning groups that were already operating as 501(c)(4)s.

At Washington, DC’s direction, dozens of groups operating as 501(c)(4)s were flagged for IRS surveillance, including monitoring of the groups’ activities, websites and any other publicly available information. Of these groups, 83 percent were right-leaning. And of the groups the IRS selected for audit, 100 percent were right-leaning.

All of this provides context for today’s markup, which is legislation we are considering that would stop the ability of the IRS and Treasury to legalize the targeting of conservative groups. On Black Friday, Treasury released proposed rules regarding 501(c)(4)s that would essentially remove conservative groups from the public square. The rationale of the IRS and Treasury was that the rules, which have been in place for more than 50 years, created “confusion.”

However, we learned that Treasury and the IRS had been working on these guidelines behind closed doors for years. According to interviews with IRS employees, as early as 2011, work started on new 501(c)(4) regulations. A June 2012 email between Treasury officials and then-IRS Director of Tax Exempt Organizations Lois Lerner revealed that these potential regulations were being discussed “off-plan” – meaning that the plans for the regulations were not to be published on the public schedule. Treasury’s fabricated rationale for changing a 50-year old rule raises serious questions about the integrity of the rule-making process and counsels for putting a hold on the draft rules.

It is important to note that the Committee has made these discoveries without even having the full universe of documents requested from the IRS – including thousands of documents from Lois Lerner that have not yet been provided. Simply put, our investigation is not yet over, the document collection is not yet complete, and I don’t believe the IRS or the FBI has interviewed a single victim. The notion that the Administration would rush forward with rules intended to remove these groups from the public forum, is simply unacceptable.

Under these proposed rules, activities such as candidate forums, get out the vote efforts, and voter registration would now be considered “political activity” for 501(c)(4) groups. It is notable to mention that these activities would not be considered political for 501(c)(3)s – who cannot engage in any political activity – or unions.

I have long made clear that this Committee will fight any and all efforts to restrict the rights of groups to organize, speak out and educate the public. The legislation before us today would prevent these rules from being implemented by this Administration for one year. This timeframe would allow Congress to finish our investigation and ensure that the agency processes what is already a record number of public comments – more than 23,000 so far – so that the IRS and Treasury can really get to the merits of why these rules were formed.

Groups should be treated fairly regardless of their political beliefs. The “STOP Targeting of Political Beliefs by the IRS Act” ensures that this Administration will not be allowed to discriminate against groups based on their politics."


http://waysandmeans.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=369556

 

I wonder what excuse the New McCarthyites in the Senate will come up with to explain why they can't resist their Stalinist impulses.

 

One of these lawsuits in the system will eventually make their way to the USSC. And I have little doubt that the way in which conservative groups were targeted will be found Unconstitutional. All of it was done in an angry response to the USSC Citizens United Ruling. The Court will see what was done and why....and I don't think they'll support it. Of course, the liberals on the Court who all voted against the ruling in the first place will do contortions to try and justify that they will of course somehow support the targeting as being Constitutional. IMHO, that would be quite a contortion seeing as how many were flagged as a result of the "media attention." Since when is the IRS supposed to be basing what they do on "media attention???" That's even more proof that what they did was political as well as Unconstitutional.

 

We also need to examine the obvious and blatant hypocrisy of Democrats on the issue of Citizens United. Think back to 2004. Recall that Citizens United filed a complaint about Michael Moore's movie that discredit Pres. Bush.....just before the 2004 election. That decision went all the way to the U.S. District Court for D.C. Citizens United....and that court found the commercials run for the movie during that 30 day period were "bona fide commercial activity," and "not contributions." This was even though MM was on talk shows stating he "hoped" it would sway the election and that was his intent. AND Moveon.org....a 501c4 helped promote the movie.

Fast forward to Citizen United's attempt to show a movie critical of Hillary close to an election in 2008. Democrats tried to stop that one....and Citizens United filed another complaint....that reached all the way to the USSC by early 2010. Somehow Dems thought that a Michael Moore movies critical of Bush just before and election was fine and dandy....but one just before an election critical of Hillary, not so much. Fortunately the court saw the inconsistencies of that thought process.....and ruled in favor of Citizen United this time.

 

In the mind of some burnout hipster liberal:

Arresting a protester who throws glass bottles at a cop is a violation of free speech.

Using legal force to silence somebody who doesn't agree with you is not a violation of free speech

 

i haven't seen any proof of that and if there was any, i'm pretty sure the gop would be all over it


[video=youtube;9uzJYlbhH54]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9uzJYlbhH54[/video]


From Obamacare to the IRS scandal, Republicans are ignoring the facts

I went from Issa’s hearing in the Rayburn building to a Ways and Means subcommittee hearing in the Longworth building. The topic was different — this one was about the IRS targeting conservative groups — but the no-fact zone was still in force.

There is ample evidence of mismanagement at the IRS that led conservative groups’ tax-exempt applications to be delayed. It’s disturbing that the overwhelming number of groups targeted were conservatives — and e-mails from some IRS workers indicate an inappropriate concern about public perception. There also are questions about whether the IRS’s new guidelines are too restrictive.

But Charles Boustany (R-La.), the subcommittee chairman, went well beyond that, disputing President Obama’s claim that no corruption has been found at the IRS. “Now this committee has actually investigated the matter to a significant degree and found otherwise,” he said.

That’s a serious charge: A House subcommittee chairman is alleging criminal conduct.

I checked with Ways and Means staff members and was told that Boustany did not intend to make such an allegation.

It wasn’t just him. Dave Camp (R-Mich.), chairman of the full committee, disputed Obama’s claim that the targeting occurred because workers thought the guidelines were “confusing.” Said Camp: “Nowhere in our investigation have we found that to be the case.”

Nowhere? How about in the May 3 e-mail from Treasury’s deputy inspector general for investigations? He said he had examined 5,500 e-mails related to the targeting and “there was no indication that pulling these selected applications was politically motivated. The e-mail traffic indicated there were unclear processing directions and the group wanted to make sure they had guidance on processing the applications so they pulled them.”

When Sandy Levin (Mich.), the ranking Democrat on the panel, complained that no evidence of corruption or political influence has been found, Boustany replied, “I want to emphasize that this committee’s investigation is not complete.”

Perhaps he should have kept that in mind before accusing the administration of a crime.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/from-obamacare-to-the-irs-scandal-republicans-are-ignoring-the-facts/2014/02/05/d827ccca-8ebd-11e3-b46a-5a3d0d2130da_story.html

 

I remember when the President was first elected?


Rightwing conspiracy nuts posted ENDLESSLY how "Obama gonna re-instate the Fairness Doctrine....Hush Rush...and Fox News". And yet "oddly" even with a Democratic Congress until 2010....he didn't.

And here we are...Tea Partyers rally all the time.....Fox News still on the air....Rightwing Radio on every AM station and many FM stations.....

and supposedly NOW, "Obama's going to silence opposition groups...and this time...WE MEAN IT!"

 

The Republicans can hardly be "all over it," when you've got this administration refusing to turn over certain information, IRS people taking the 5th, and an AG (Holder) refusing to appoint a Special Prosecutor. Instead he appoints a large donor to be the investigator. When he and Obama said they were "outraged" it was all a ruse. They were NOT outraged and immediately set out to "circle the wagons." And so far.....there are no Democrats inside this administration that have the integrity to stand up for what is right.

During the Nixon administration, there were Republican leaders who said....'this isn't right, we aren't going to support targeting Americans and covering up scandals." But today, there are NO SUCH Democrat leaders with that kind of integrity to do the right thing. They don't care about the conservatives who were targeted....but in fact, support it. That's why many people believe this president is the president for only a certain segment of Americans. He doesn't care about the rest nor does he work for them.

 

Don't worry. He's got 2+ more years. And he's got his pen and his phone!! Or have you forgotten those threats already?

 

face it, there's no evidence of a crime having been committed

he's trying to get something done, unlike gop obstructionists

 

Really? One would have to have their head in the sand to believe there it was coincidental that ONLY conservative groups were audited for their 501c4's. And why do you think Lois Lerner planted the fake question at a meeting which she thought would give her some cover about targeting conservatives? She KNEW what the IG had found and it wasn't good. It found targeting. Or did you forget that important fact?

 

He's trying to get what HE wants done.......and bypassing the Constitution.

 

so you're saying executive orders are unconstitutional?

 

You mean like STIFLING the speech of 3 (or was it 4) REPUBLICANS who got to give speeches after the STATE OF UNION?? How come women (and others) can't deduct contributions to NOW or NARAL or EMILY'S LIST which work in SPEECH and action to protect CHOICE, a legal CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT, yet men (and others) all over the country can contribute and deduct every cent to churches and other groups that actively work to CURTAIL WOMEN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE.

 

IF one is so concerned about 501c4's that NEED to be examined.....look no further than OFA (Organizing for America), which is Obama's 501c4. It began as his Campaign....his PAC...and was allowed in early January 2009 to switch over to a 501c4, which is supposed to be social welfare and NOT political. He got to keep leftover campaign money too.....so he had a cushion to start with to use in his 501c4. Why was that money contributed to his campaign able to be kept for use in his 501c4? And his people stayed on too.....Axelrod, Pfloffe, and more. Before year end 2009, OFA had PAID staff in almost every state. They went on a bus tour to sell Obamacare....what's NOT political about that, huh???? And each and every time he went out to raise money for OFA through speeches and appearances, it was POLITICAL. But it was allowed....and continues to be allowed. OFA raised $23 million in 2013; but claims to be grassroots.

But instead the IRS worried about some grassroots Tea Party groups having meetings in their living rooms and educating others about the issues at hand.

BTW, how convenient that the UNIONS have their own separate little entity....something called a 50l(c)(5), which is not even a concern to anyone. Contribute a WHOLE LOT Of money to Democrats and Obama too.....so no, we won't be hearing ONE THING about them or THEIR money.

 

They can. NOW's Foundation is a 501(c)(3) tax deductible to the person making the donation and tax-exempt to the foundation. Because a 501c3 gets to be tax deductible for those making the donations, they have to provide the list of donors. A 501(c)(4) is not tax deductible to those making the donation and therefore they do not have to disclose the donors.

 

Oh....and Emily's List is a PAC.....and they also have a 501(c)(4). American Women is a 501(c)(4) organization affiliated with EMILY’s List, the nation’s largest resource for women in politics. All of these entities have different taxing authority depending of whether they are political, endorsing candidates.....or social issues and educational.

 

No. There is a place for them......like when it's something that can't wait and the Congress is in recess, etc. Or perhaps if it's something more regulatory in nature vs. about making law.....or changing laws. But on a LAW as LARGE as Obamacare....and that effects the entire nation as it does.......no way should he be changing the LAW 29 times as he has already....and all by his lonesome. Can you imagine any president coming in and making 29 changes to Social Security or Medicare all by themselves????

Do you really support this kind of thing? Or do you just support it because it's Obama doing it?

 

Ah, it's so refreshing to have such an open and honest administration.

 

The Op has presented a very dishonest misrepresentation of the truth. They are rehashing the same old rhetoric that has already been debunked many times, as if this is all brand new information. Everyone knows why the Tea Party was targeted. That has been logically explained many times. It has also been explained how the law itself was hijacked in 1959, unbeknownst to the IRS, that according to how the illegal law was drawn up, the IRS was forced to target many Tea Party groups based on the fact their numbers were so large. This is the only thing the IRS could go on. They had to target. If the 1954 law had not been compromised back then, we wouldn't even be talking about the IRS. The IRS would automatically know to target everyone then, and to deny all of them who were seeking tax exemption other than those for charitable purposes. So, whatever the new right wing talking points are today, they are still as useless as the other talking points.

Whatever mistakes the IRS did was a direct result of a law that had been compromised. Once you know that and accept that, you will realize this whole thing has been nothing but pure nonsense from the very beginning.

 

W

Well, I see that the Dems' new "talking point" where they went back to 1959 to try and find something to counter this......is getting around to the mainstream! But just think about that: 1959....and the Dems used it this way ALL those decades with absolutely NO problem. It was ONLY when conservatives decided to get in did it finally become a problem with Dems. Typical. And not at all surprising.

For instance....did the IRS examine Obama's campaign PAC that got changed personally by Ms. Lois (I take the 5th) Lerner in less than 30 days.....into a 501(c)(4) back in January 2009? And he got to keep...and use leftover campaign money in that 501c4 too. Nice, eh???? And his campaign guys including Axelrod and Pfloffe work it? Nah.....nothing political there, eh folks? A 501c4 isn't supposed to campaign. And yet...as we all know....Obama is the Campaigner in Chief. Wonder how much of his campaigning efforts have gone into the coffers of his 501c4? Has the IRS bothered to look? Do they care? I think we ALL know the answer to BOTH of those questions is a big fat: NOPE.

 

It was allowed to switch over the same way the Tea party was able to switch over. Bear in mind, if all these organizations were able to switch over, it meant that"ALL" these organizations were targeted including OFA. And guess what, they all were eventually approved. Except for one thing; none of them should have been approved, even OFA, if the IRS had been going by the original law. But it does prove one thing; targeting was not done because of political bias by the IRS.

 

What they did was neither political nor unconstitutional. What they did was acted out of ignorance of a law that was on the books that shouldn't have been there.

 

They were outraged. Except they were outraged for reasons they had not quite determined at the time. All the signs of wrong doing by the IRS were there. But later, when the information finally became known about the (501)C4 law being compromised from the 1954 law to a distorted not well understood law in 1959 that was changed illegally, then that changed the whole derangement syndrome into what they thought was going on, to one of complete innocence and ignorance of what actually happened to their own law.

[/quote] And of course, you have absolutely zero evidence of that.

 

>>>Off Topic Removed<<< The shear number of Tea Party applications is how all this accidentally was revealed. If those shear numbers of applications hadn't been brought forth, this still may have never gotten attention or noticed. It could still be going on. Thanks to the Tea Party for revealing it to us, now hopefully we will have many more denies instead of approves.