The Motley Fool Discussion Boards

Previous Page

Politics & Current Events / Political Asylum


Subject:  Re: Lamest scheme ever Date:  5/18/2013  9:34 AM
Author:  albaby1 Number:  1878224 of 2203933

That's not my claim. My claim is that political groups applying for 501(c)(4) status deserve additional scrutiny, not that they automatically are ineligible.

I thought that you stated above that these groups shouldn't have been approved - that they did not meet the criteria for 501(c)(4) status, and were only approved because the IRS wanted to mitigate the scandal. That's how you concluded that there was no harm to them, since they never should have been applying for this particular status in the first place - they should have been applying as 527's.

If you're claiming that political issue groups need additional scrutiny - not that they're ineligible - then we're back to the main issue again. The IRS categorically subjected conservative groups to additional scrutiny that they did not categorically apply to progressive groups - all of the signifiers that they used for their BOLO screens were associated with conservative movements.

Copyright 1996-2018 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us