IRS won't require NRA, other groups to disclose donors to tax officials

[GMDino]

Just a-DRAININ' that swamp!

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/07/17/trump-administration-wont-force-nra-kochs-disclose-donors-irs/792094002/

Quote:The Trump administration will no longer force some tax-exempt organizations, including politically active groups such as the National Rifle Association, to identify their contributors to federal tax officials.


The policy, announced this week by Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, achieves a long-standing goal of some conservative groups who say donor disclosure, even to the IRS, could subject their contributors to government intimidation and harassment. 

The change drew protests Tuesday from campaign finance watchdogs, who said it strips the government of its ability to scrutinize those donations and could lead to foreign interests illegally infiltrating U.S. elections through advocacy groups – as the country grapples with Russian interference in the 2016 presidential contest.

"This is the theater of the absurd," said Fred Wertheimer of the watchdog group Democracy 21. "By limiting donor disclosure to the IRS, they have limited any ability to prevent Russia and Russian oligarchs to launder unlimited, undisclosed and illegal contributions through advocacy groups into federal elections."

It also set up an immediate campaign finance battle on Capitol Hill as the midterm congressional elections heat up.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., celebrated the administration's move from the Senate floor, saying it bars the government from improperly using its power to "invite harassment of citizens" by "angry left-wing activists."

The top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden, said he would oppose Trump's nominee to run the IRS, California tax lawyer Charles Rettig, unless the administration revoked the new policy. 

"It's the latest attempt by Secretary Mnuchin and Donald Trump to eliminate transparency and keep officials and lawmakers from following the money," Wyden said.

The change will affect labor unions, social clubs, trade organizations and politically active advocacy groups, ranging from Planned Parenthood Action Fund to parts of the influential conservative network overseen by Kansas billionaire Charles Koch. 

The names of donors to these nonprofit groups have not been publicly available, but the organizations were required to disclose contributor information to the IRS on their annual tax returns. These groups generally do not operate as charities, and their donors do not receive tax deductions in exchange for their contributions.

As a result, Mnuchin said the IRS doesn't need their donor information to police tax laws. The tax agency still can ask the organizations for details on contributors if additional scrutiny is warranted.

“Americans shouldn’t be required to send the IRS information that it doesn’t need to effectively enforce our tax laws, and the IRS simply does not need tax returns with donor names and addresses to do its job in this area,” Mnuchin said in a statement.

More: Exclusive: Secret money funds more than 40 percent of outside congressional ads

Officials affiliated with Koch long have pushed for this change and lobbied on behalf of a bill that passed the House in 2016 that would have kept donors anonymous. The legislation was opposed by the Obama administration.

Tuesday, a top Koch official praised the Trump administration's move. 

"The Treasury Department and IRS took a positive step toward protecting the First Amendment rights of Americans," Nathan Nascimento of the Koch's Freedom Partners said in a statement. "This was the right decision because citizens shouldn't fear harassment or persecution over their beliefs."

NRA officials did not immediately respond to a request for comment. 

Monday, federal authorities unsealed charges against a Russian national they accused of seeking to infiltrate American political organizations, including the NRA, on behalf of the Kremlin.

Supporters of the new policy noted that the IRS has faced controversy over its handling of tax-exempt groups.  In 2013, for instance, the agency mistakenly released a portion of the Republican Governors Association tax return that disclosed  some of its donors. That year, the tax agency became engulfed in scandal after the agency's inspector general found federal tax officials inappropriately targeted political groups for additional scrutiny.

While the effects both sides of the aisle...it is interesting that conservatives were the ones pushing for it so their donors did not get "harassed" because they are whiny snowflakes that cannot stand up for their political beliefs.

[BmorePat87]

When you're in bed with Russian spies, it's best not to expose the money they gave you.

[NATI BENGALS]

If you want to pay massive amounts of money to impose your beliefs on others we as Republicans will protect you like the delicate snowflake that you are.

#Republitards

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-24-2018, 09:54 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: If you want to pay massive amounts of money to impose your beliefs on others we as Republicans will protect you like the delicate snowflake that you are.

#Republitards

Please explain how the NRA "imposes their beliefs" on others.

[*bfine32*]

I gotta admit; I'm kind of lost on this one. Are folks suggesting that organizations be forced to disclose who donates to them?

[NATI BENGALS]

(07-24-2018, 10:02 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Please explain how the NRA "imposes their beliefs" on others.

Massive efforts and expenditures to influence policies.

Quick non-republitard way of looking at things. In a government for the people by the people... Big money doesnt get to anonomysly do whatever the hell they want to our political system

[*michaelsean*]

If they aren’t tax deductible donations, what business is it if the IRS?

[NATI BENGALS]

(07-24-2018, 10:18 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I gotta admit; I'm kind of lost on this one. Are folks suggesting that organizations be forced to disclose who donates to them?

Well here. Let me loosen the blindfold.

As an American citizen do you have a right to know about big money being used to influence your government?

[*michaelsean*]

(07-24-2018, 10:37 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Well here. Let me loosen the blindfold.

As an American citizen do you have a right to know about big money being used to influence your government?

Yes. We know exactly what the NRA or Planned Parenthood donates. What business is it of the IRS who gave it to them?

[*bfine32*]

(07-24-2018, 10:37 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Well here. Let me loosen the blindfold.

As an American citizen do you have a right to know about big money being used to influence your government?

Meh. I was kinda hoping I could be an anonymous donor if I chose to do so

[NATI BENGALS]

What business is it of a government for the people by the people to know about unfriendly adversaries using corrupt money to influence the very foundation of the nation?

So that is what is being asked here?

#republitard4life

[*bfine32*]

(07-24-2018, 10:54 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: What business is it of a government for the people by the people to know about unfriendly adversaries using corrupt money to influence the very foundation of the nation?

So that is what is being asked here?

#republitard4life

Nah, the question I asked was up there in post #5. I even put the little ? thingy at the end. 

[*michaelsean*]

(07-24-2018, 10:54 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: What business is it of a government for the people by the people to know about unfriendly adversaries using corrupt money to influence the very foundation of the nation?

So that is what is being asked here?

#republitard4life

No what’s being asked is what business of the IRS is it? Nobody is claiming these donations on their taxes.

[BmorePat87]

(07-24-2018, 10:18 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I gotta admit; I'm kind of lost on this one. Are folks suggesting that organizations be forced to disclose who donates to them?

This concerns tax exempt organizations, and yes. Everyone paying taxes has to disclose all of their sources of income. Tax exempt organizations should follow suit. 

[BmorePat87]

(07-24-2018, 11:08 PM)michaelsean Wrote: No what’s being asked is what business of the IRS is it?  Nobody is claiming these donations on their taxes.

Well the IRS is the one that grants them the tax exempt status. I imagine they have some business in ensuring that they should keep that status. 

[*michaelsean*]

(07-24-2018, 11:26 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Well the IRS is the one that grants them the tax exempt status. I imagine they have some business in ensuring that they should keep that status. 

Yes their business is with the organization. It’s not with the donors.

[NATI BENGALS]

(07-24-2018, 10:59 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Nah, the question I asked was up there in post #5. I even put the little ? thingy at the end. 

I answered your question with a question. See post #11 the post you quoted. Oh and post #8 too

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-24-2018, 10:27 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Massive efforts and expenditures to influence policies.

Quick non-republitard way of looking at things. In a government for the people by the people... Big money doesnt get to anonomysly do whatever the hell they want to our political system

Sorry, but that's a non-answer.  By that, very loose, definition every single group in the country that tries to effect political change falls into your category.  So I will reiterate, how does the NRA attempt to enforce their views on others?

[BmorePat87]

(07-24-2018, 11:37 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Yes their business is with the organization. It’s not with the donors.

Of course it is. These groups maintain their status by following certain procedures with their donations. Determining that all donors are legally eligible to donate to these tax exempt organization is the IRS' business. 

This is of particular concern with the influx of foreign money to help influence elections. It's been a concern for decades. You can set up a shell company in the US and push millions to one of these organizations. 

But some people like the idea of foreign money and less transparency, which is why they make up a laughable argument that this is about free speech. 

[*bfine32*]

(07-24-2018, 11:39 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: I answered your question with a question. 

Fred, is that you?