Aug 222013
 

As hard as they have tried, Republicans have been completely unable to find a bona-fide scandal to use against the Obama Administration and the Democratic Party.  In the absence of anything authentic they have embarked on a series of pseudo-scandals.  To make them appear legitimate, the Republican House leadership has withheld key information from the House and the public.  One key example is the IRS scandal.  The real scandal, once again, is how Republicans distorted the law to enable election theft.  Finally a Democrat is doing something about it.

22VanHollenA key House Democrat plans to file a lawsuit Wednesday challenging the Internal Revenue Service’s interpretation of a law that governs tax-exemption eligibility for social welfare groups.

Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), the ranking member of the House Budget Committee whose office announced the action, will serve as lead plaintiff in the case, joining campaign-finance watchdogs Democracy 21, the Campaign Legal Center and Public Citizen.

The lawsuit will address one of the main concerns that surfaced with the recent IRS targeting controversy: Differences between federal law and the IRS rules on eligibility for 501(c)(4) candidates.

Current law says the organizations must engage “exclusively” in so-called “social welfare” activities, while IRS regulations require that their “primary” purpose fall into that category… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <Washington Post>

To the best of my knowledge, nobody other than me covered the fact that Republicans twisted the IRS regulation contrary to the law in 1959, before Lawrence O’Donnell did so. Here is his coverage of this story with Chris Van Hollen.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Note that only Democratic leaning organizations, not Republican, were actually denied exempt status, contrary the Republican lies that made this a scandal.

The reason this is so important to Republicans is that, under their crooked interpretation of the law, the 0.1% billionaires, who own the Republican Party, can pour untold millions into elections, while pretending to be someone else. If Chris wins, and I think he will, at least they will have to give their names when they flood campaigns with money, as Citizens United allows. When they do, I’ll be here to call them out on it.

Share

  17 Responses to “Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) to Sue IRS”

  1. Chris Van Hollen and Lawrence O'Donnell aere both very knowledgeable on this subject. When Lawrence was a Congrressional Aide, tax law was his area of expertise. May his lawsuit win!

  2. God bless Chris Van Hollen and all with him!  Hooray for you all TC – it is very wrong  for a government agency like this to alter the law. 

  3. I like it for the buzz it generates, but it'll be hard for him to prove he has legal standing to initiate such a lawsuit.

    • Surely he is filing this as a civil suit?  So he needs to prove he, or his class if it's a class action, was harmed?  I agree it may be interesting to watch.  I wish him all the luck in the world.  98% of us have been harmed by this abuse of power.

    • Joanne js correct that it is a civil suit.  The reason he has standing is that, as one who runs for office, secretly funded 501(c)(4) attack ads have beem leveled against him, making him a direct victim of that TEAbuggery.

  4. Since 2010s Citizen United, it is understandable that these organisations that have benefitted from both anonymity and unlimited spending in political advertising would want to keep the misinterpretation alive and functioning to their favour.  And as Lawrence noted, not one Republicanus/Teabagger organisation was denied status under 501(c)(4), while 3 organisations in support of Democrats were denied standing.

    But what happened in 1959 for the IRS to so badly misinterpret the law as written by Congress — "organizations must engage “exclusively” in so-called “social welfare” activities, while IRS regulations require that their “primary” purpose fall into that category"?  In 1959, Eisenhower, a Republican, was president, while Tricky Dicky Nixon was VP.  Was Nixon getting an early start on political chicanery?

    Personally, I don't think this should be a big deal — IRS policy/proceedures should be amended to reflect the law as passed by Congress.  However, I fully expect the Republicanus/Teabaggers will fight tooth and nail to keep safe the identities of their corporate benefactors.  As Chris Van Hollen said, all this suit will do is restore the law as written and put politically vested organisations in a category where their names are public, the way it should be.  

    As to the pseudo scandal the Republicanus/Teabaggers tried to launch re Democrats through the IRS "targeting" conservative organisations (Issa is such an ass!), I hope that accusation comes back to bite the Republicanus/Teabaggers (particularly that obnoxious Issa) in the ass, big time!

    • At least three.  Those were just the three found using one search argument.

      That's hard to tell, but Infernal Revenue was under Republican control.

      I agree.

      Amen!.

  5. I hope he wins this suit, if they have to give their names when they contribute, they will be more accountable.  Shared this on Facebook.

  6. The lawsuit will address one of the main concerns that surfaced with the recent IRS targeting controversy: Differences between federal law and the IRS rules on eligibility for 501(c)(4) candidates.

    I learned via Lawernce O'Donnell on The Last Word.

    http://youtu.be/vYCHCcpwYQc

    • I learned from reading the law, when Republicans started to invent the scandal.

      • I truely hope Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), wins this one… :smile:

        I learned from reading the law,

        Law and Golf, I'd rather watch paint dry… :idea:

        • It can certainly be dry, but experience has taught me that, when Republicans start complaining about claimed legal violations, I'd better read the law, if I want to understand the how they are lying, and what's really going on.  That's how I managed to post that Republicans had sabotaged the loaw with the regulation, before Lawrence made it public.

  7. All groups engaged in any political actions should be completely transparent to the public when it comes to cotributions and actions.