View Full Version : Karen Kenney Testimony before House Committee
Gutshot John
06-04-13, 09:37
Wow...eloquent, sincere, passionate.
No style, all substance.
Watch her now if you can.
Who is she and why is she speaking?
Gutshot John
06-04-13, 12:14
Head of San Fernando Valley Patriots.
She was discussing her experiences with the IRS and her groups ability to gain tax-exempt status.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CR8QTHbIVDE
She should have skipped the prologue and epilogue and just presented the facts without the rhetoric that will permit most who support her criticisms of government to dismiss her as another fringe looney. When she started in on pilgrms and the like you could almost see half the room click the "ignore" button.
montanadave
06-04-13, 13:14
I don't take issue with Ms. Kenney's testimony and I certainly do not condone the IRS specifically targeting one political group over another.
The IRS should be targeting EVERY political group applying for tax exempt 501(c)(4) status.
The 501(c)(4) tax exempt status was designed for "social welfare organizations." The IRS explicitly states "The promotion of social welfare does not include direct or indirect participation or intervention in political campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office. However, a section 501(c)(4) social welfare organization may engage in some political activities, so long as that is not its primary activity." (http://www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Profits/Other-Non-Profits/Social-Welfare-Organizations)
Is anybody going to argue that the primary activity of Ms. Kenney's chapter of Tea Party Patriots is non-political? Because I call bullshit.
And the same goes for every liberal/progressive organization seeking to shield their blatantly political activities by manipulating the system.
Gutshot John
06-04-13, 13:31
She should have skipped the prologue and epilogue and just presented the facts without the rhetoric that will permit most who support her criticisms of government to dismiss her as another fringe looney. When she started in on pilgrms and the like you could almost see half the room click the "ignore" button.
I couldn't disagree more.
It has been a long time since I've heard such a reasoned, intellectual, and passionate oratory in defense of liberty. She quoted John Adams, but she very much channeled his eloquence. The prologue set the foundation for why it was such an egregious violation, and the facts documented its occurrence.
What else but a historic review of our common foundations would achieve the same goal. Her message was powerful precisely because it was unexpected.
She was anything but fringe, and there was nothing "looney" about her. She was reasoned, articulate, and sincere.
I see far more "looney" things commonly expressed by certain members of this forum.
Becky Gerritson was another one.
Gutshot John
06-04-13, 13:39
I don't take issue with Ms. Kenney's testimony and I certainly do not condone the IRS specifically targeting one political group over another.
The IRS should be targeting EVERY political group applying for tax exempt 501(c)(4) status.
Except they weren't just targeting those groups.
Moreover the IRS acknowledges that it did so inappropriately.
The 501(c)(4) tax exempt status was designed for "social welfare organizations." The IRS explicitly states "The promotion of social welfare does not include direct or indirect participation or intervention in political campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office. However, a section 501(c)(4) social welfare organization may engage in some political activities, so long as that is not its primary activity." (http://www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Profits/Other-Non-Profits/Social-Welfare-Organizations)
It only specifies a 90% social welfare criteria. Some associated political advocacy is allowed. That said, political advocacy is a form of free speech. You don't check your first amendment rights out the window just because you want tax exempt status.
Is anybody going to argue that the primary activity of Ms. Kenney's chapter of Tea Party Patriots is non-political? Because I call bullshit.
And the same goes for every liberal/progressive organization seeking to shield their blatantly political activities by manipulating the system.
See above. That said, see NAACP.
montanadave
06-04-13, 13:50
As previously stated, I do not condone the actions of the IRS.
And I'm all for free speech. I just don't think these groups (regardless of political stripe) deserve tax-exempt status. I sure as hell pay my taxes and I don't get a deduction when I donate to a candidate's campaign. My name also gets listed on a public record. We need more transparency with respect to the money influencing politics and public policy, not less.
I couldn't disagree more.
It has been a long time since I've heard such a reasoned, intellectual, and passionate oratory in defense of liberty. She quoted John Adams, but she very much channeled his eloquence. The prologue set the foundation for why it was such an egregious violation, and the facts documented its occurrence.
What else but a historic review of our common foundations would achieve the same goal. Her message was powerful precisely because it was unexpected.
She was anything but fringe, and there was nothing "looney" about her. She was reasoned, articulate, and sincere.
I see far more "looney" things commonly expressed by certain members of this forum.
Becky Gerritson was another one.
I don't think she's looney, I have more in common with her than anybody she was speaking to.
But once you start talking about "pilgrims coming here bringing the light of Moses and Christ" you provide the opportunity for every member of Congress who already doesn't like "tea party people" to give themselves justification in their minds, to dismiss a very valid issue.
Imagine if a member of some socialist group came along with a criticism of say...The Patriot Act. If they confined their comments to how such legislation is an infringement and violates the rights of US citizens we'd probably be supportive. But the moment they started with some "lonney left" rhetoric they would quickly lose support from most of us.
As previously stated, I do not condone the actions of the IRS.
And I'm all for free speech. I just don't think these groups (regardless of political stripe) deserve tax-exempt status. I sure as hell pay my taxes and I don't get a deduction when I donate to a candidate's campaign. My name also gets listed on a public record. We need more transparency with respect to the money influencing politics and public policy, not less.
I'm kinda right there too. I don't see how being politically active means you are no longer obligated to pay taxes. Of course, while we are at it I don't think being religious should exempt anybody either. In fact I can't think of a valid reason anybody should be exempted from paying taxes.
Maybe if every voter paid taxes, and more importantly paid the exact same percentage of their income as every other person, they'd be a little more careful about what they voted for.
I'm kinda right there too. I don't see how being politically active means you are no longer obligated to pay taxes. Of course, while we are at it I don't think being religious should exempt anybody either. In fact I can't think of a valid reason anybody should be exempted from paying taxes.
Maybe if every voter paid taxes, and more importantly paid the exact same percentage of their income as every other person, they'd be a little more careful about what they voted for.
It is not a matter of voters paying taxes. It is a matter of "profit" from their donations being taxed.
Why should money that was already taxed when I earned it, get taxed again when I donate it to an advocacy group that I support? They are not earning "profit" in the capitalism sense.
--
Gutshot John
06-04-13, 15:09
And I'm all for free speech. I just don't think these groups (regardless of political stripe) deserve tax-exempt status. I sure as hell pay my taxes and I don't get a deduction when I donate to a candidate's campaign. My name also gets listed on a public record. We need more transparency with respect to the money influencing politics and public policy, not less.
Whoah. Bit of a straw man...moreover it's totally irrelevant who you think should be granted tax exempt status.
You may believe that, but due process allows their application to be judged on its merits and decided accordingly. NO ONE HAS ASKED FOR BLANKET TAX EXEMPT STATUS FOR THESE GROUPS. Only that they be considered fairly.
Congress created the law, and those organizations are simply applying in good faith. They provided all the requested pieces of information for that application and were entitled to a timely response yay or nay.
No one is denying that the IRS can deny an application for 501c4/tax exempt status, that intimidation and harrassment was used to target private citizens simply for their attempts to organize according to their first amendment rights of freedom of association and speech.
Your argument also falls apart because not all the groups were 501c4s, several were 501c3s which are perfectly entitled to political advocacy.
This was government intimidation and abuse of power, pure and simple.
Gutshot John
06-04-13, 15:14
I don't think she's looney, I have more in common with her than anybody she was speaking to.]
Ok...
But once you start talking about "pilgrims coming here bringing the light of Moses and Christ" you provide the opportunity for every member of Congress who already doesn't like "tea party people" to give themselves justification in their minds, to dismiss a very valid issue.
I don't care what the members of Congress think, I care what the fairminded Americans at home think.
Imagine if a member of some socialist group came along with a criticism of say...The Patriot Act. If they confined their comments to how such legislation is an infringement and violates the rights of US citizens we'd probably be supportive. But the moment they started with some "lonney left" rhetoric they would quickly lose support from most of us.
I see no comparison there to be made.
One is talking about the historical foundations of our republic and cultural precedents of our view of liberty, the other is talking about a political philosophy, which has nothing at all to do with freedom, and does little to underpin arguments against the Patriot Act.
It is not a matter of voters paying taxes. It is a matter of "profit" from their donations being taxed.
Why should money that was already taxed when I earned it, get taxed again when I donate it to an advocacy group that I support? They are not earning "profit" in the capitalism sense.
--
If you want to be philosophical about it, the only money that should be taxed is that from interest and donations.
My earnings are not income, I have traded labor for money. That is not income. If I put that money in the bank and it earns interest, then that interest is income.
But for an advocacy group, donations are income as they didn't trade labor for it. The money was donated.
If somebody donated money to me, that would be income.
I don't care what the members of Congress think, I care what the fairminded Americans at home think.
Then why is she wasting time addressing them? It's far more important what members of Congress think as "fairminded Americans at home" aren't the problem but more importantly "fairminded Americans at home" aren't in a position to address and / or fix the problem.
I see no comparison there to be made.
One is talking about the historical foundations of our republic and cultural precedents of our view of liberty, the other is talking about a political philosophy, which has nothing at all to do with freedom, and does little to underpin arguments against the Patriot Act.
Doesn't matter if you think they are related or not, the issue is in both examples you lose your audience, and in this case that audience is the group that is supposed to help you correct a big problem.
montanadave
06-04-13, 15:25
This was government intimidation and abuse of power, pure and simple.
No argument here. I concur.
Solely because the IRS chose to single out groups of one particular persuasion. They should drop the hammer on the whole lot, from A to Z, who are fraudulently seeking tax-exempt status as a 501(c)(4) group when they are, for all intents and purposes, political action committees.
Let's just call a spade a spade. And apply the law equally.
Gutshot John
06-04-13, 15:27
Then why is she wasting time addressing them?
You call it a waste of time. I call it a defense of our founding principles.
It's far more important what members of Congress think as "fairminded Americans at home" aren't the problem but more importantly "fairminded Americans at home" aren't in a position to address and / or fix the problem.
Irony abounds.
Doesn't matter if you think they are related or not, the issue is in both examples you lose your audience, and in this case that audience is the group that is supposed to help you correct a big problem.
You're projecting yourself onto others. They only lost you. Others understood.
She was direct, concise, and incisive. She was eloquent, sincere, and persuasive.
If you think that's a liability to our side...well I don't know what to say. It does reinforce my thoughts about what passes for "conservatism" around here.
I grew up with conservatism as an intellectual philosophy. That's it's become the playground of idiots explains much of our problem. That people prefer loudmouthed demagogues over eloquent sincerity is a bit disheartening.
You call it a waste of time. I call it a defense of our founding principles.
Ok, we went off track somewhere. You said you didn't care what members of Congress (who she was addressing) think. I said if it doesn't matter what they think she is wasting her time.
I personally think she was doing the correct thing by address them and it IS important what they think because they are the only ones who "might" try to fix the problem.
Irony abounds.
Not sure exactly where you are going with that as it can be applied many different ways, but ok.
You're projecting yourself onto others. They only lost you. Others understood.
She was direct, concise, and incisive. She was eloquent, sincere, and persuasive.
If you think that's a liability to our side...well I don't know what to say. It does reinforce my thoughts about what passes for "conservatism" around here.
I grew up with conservatism as an intellectual philosophy. That's it's become the playground of idiots explains much of our problem. That people prefer loudmouthed demagogues over eloquent sincerity is a bit disheartening.
Well, "ironically" you are either projecting onto me now or you really misunderstood what I was trying to say.
The last thing I want from a conservative is "loudmouthed demagogues." Perhaps I didn't think it needed to be said and it does so here goes.
I think she presented the issue about as well as anybody could. I think she is intelligent, insightful and got right to the heart of the matter. I really didn't think I needed to spell that out.
But I think she should have "stuck to the issue" and not gone brought up things like "the light of moses" because it will cause you to lose your audiences and here I mean members of Congress and not just me. It doesn't matter at all what I think of the "light of moses" but if half of the members of Congress decide they can dismiss her because she is talking about "pilgrims, the lights of moses and jesus" then she isn't going to accomplish what she might have without much of her prologue and epilogue.
And if you honestly believe that people in Congress aren't going to do that, then you have way more faith in Congress than I ever could.
Gutshot John
06-04-13, 16:04
My apologies.
montanadave
06-04-13, 16:15
The pilgrims' escape from the religious tyranny of King James is inspiring stuff, right up until the part where they started persecuting the Anglicans, Quakers, and Baptists who wondered along a little later.
And best just to ignore the wars with the local Indian tribes, followed by selling the captured indigenous Americans into slavery in the West Indies.
"Whiskey for me! Beer for my friends."
Gutshot John
06-04-13, 16:27
The pilgrims' escape from the religious tyranny of King James is inspiring stuff, right up until the part where they started persecuting the Anglicans, Quakers, and Baptists who wondered along a little later.
And best just to ignore the wars with the local Indian tribes, followed by selling the captured indigenous Americans into slavery in the West Indies.
"Whiskey for me! Beer for my friends."
At the time, virtually every denomination of Christianity, persecuted others, it wasn't exactly a rare thing. How do you think the Pilgrims ended up there? Human beings are capable of doing good and doing evil. See established churches, and antidisestablishmentarianism
I'd point out that many of those same religious deonominations (Congregationalists and Methodists) who came to America were also responsible for abolishing the slave trade and slavery both here and in Europe. How does that either minimize or add to the Pilgrim's legacy?
Like it or not, people came to this country to avoid persecution by government, whether on religious, political, or economic grounds.
You don't like her. Fine.
I don't think I have a reputation as a bible thumper here, but religious liberty is as fundamental, and often associated with political liberty.
montanadave
06-04-13, 16:37
I don't like or dislike Ms. Kenney. And I think, as you do, that she provided impassioned testimony to the House Ways & Means Committee. Quibbling over some of the historical footnotes is not particularly germane to this discussion.
My only point is that the IRS regulations regarding tax exempt status should be enforced equally ... and with extreme prejudice towards those political groups seeking to game the system. On both sides of the political spectrum.
My only point is that the IRS regulations regarding tax exempt status should be enforced equally ... and with extreme prejudice towards those political groups seeking to game the system. On both sides of the political spectrum.
With this, I'm in full agreement. But then, this seems rather obvious and is an underlying premise of the whole discussion about unfair targeting of conservative groups. Enforce the law fairly in all cases, yes?
I appreciated Ms. Kenney's testimony. Clear, eloquent, simple, well grounded in history and our founding principles. One could not ask for a more vintage American spokesperson.
My apologies.
No apology required for a misunderstanding. It happens on the internet sometimes.
You questioned. I explained. We are now more or less on the same page even if we don't hold identical values and beliefs.
Gutshot John
06-04-13, 17:39
My only point is that the IRS regulations regarding tax exempt status should be enforced equally ... and with extreme prejudice towards those political groups seeking to game the system. On both sides of the political spectrum.
Agreed, my point was that the 501(c)4 was created to allow those kinds of groups, not limit those types of groups. Citizens United further enshrined that principle.
My point was that both sides of the political spectrum should be allowed. Why should these groups be punished for playing by the rules created by the law?
montanadave
06-04-13, 18:10
Agreed, my point was that the 501(c)4 was created to allow those kinds of groups, not limit those types of groups.
There's the disconnect. The language regarding social welfare organizations, 501(c)(4) tax exempt status, and political activities seems very clear to me (see my post #5 above).
How that can be construed as "created to allow those kinds of groups" is difficult for me to fathom.
Gutshot John
06-04-13, 18:16
There's the disconnect. The language regarding social welfare organizations, 501(c)(4) tax exempt status, and political activities seems very clear to me (see my post #5 above).
It's creating a class by trying to limit them. You're making the classic argument against campaign finance reform. That the laws governing political activity are not only unconstitutional, but functionally stupid. The outcome achieved is the exact opposite of what was intended.
What are the standards for social welfare? How do you define them? If an informed and educated electorate is a desirable trait doesn't political speech and grassroots speech on some level by definition social welfare? Isn't competition for ideas, and the existence of many factions serve as a stabilizing, therefore beneficial force in American politics a la Federalist #10?
How that can be construed as "created to allow those kinds of groups" is difficult for me to fathom.
The government has no place determining what is allowable and not allowable political activity so long as it takes place within the bounds of the law.
So long as the entity isn't engaged in generating profits, whatever its mission, so long as it is engaged in legal activity, it should be tax exempt.
I'm inclined to agree with Ted Cruz on this one. Get rid of the IRS all together and institute a flat tax (like I've been saying for many years) lol.
montanadave
06-04-13, 18:32
It's creating a class by trying to limit them. You're making the classic argument against campaign finance reform. That the laws governing political activity are not only unconstitutional, but functionally stupid. The outcome achieved is the exact opposite of what was intended.
What are the standards for social welfare? How do you define them? If an informed and educated electorate is a desirable trait doesn't political speech and grassroots speech on some level by definition social welfare? Isn't competition for ideas, and the existence of many factions serve as a stabilizing, therefore beneficial force in American politics a la Federalist #10?
The government has no place determining what is allowable and not allowable political activity so long as it takes place within the bounds of the law.
So long as the entity isn't engaged in generating profits, whatever its mission, so long as it is engaged in legal activity, it should be tax exempt.
The regulatory statutes are quite clear in their prohibition of direct or indirect participation or intervention in political campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office by organizations seeking 501(c)(4) tax-exempt status.
If you want to change the law, pressure Congress to do so. But as of this moment, it's the law. And it should be enforced. Equally.
I'm inclined to agree with Ted Cruz on this one. Get rid of the IRS all together and institute a flat tax (like I've been saying for many years) lol.
National sales tax where size of government is directly related to the economy. Instead of having the "government we deserve" we can have "the government we can afford."
:D
Gutshot John
06-04-13, 21:28
The regulatory statutes are quite clear in their prohibition of direct or indirect participation or intervention in political campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office by organizations seeking 501(c)(4) tax-exempt status.
It's not a regulation, it's a section of law. See the 1st Amendment. It's being interpreted that way now, as a means of hammering the political opposition, it was intended to simply differentiate between political and non-political activity, not regulate that activity.
If you want to change the law, pressure Congress to do so. But as of this moment, it's the law. And it should be enforced. Equally.
Laws are interpreted, laws are enforced. That's the thing. Laws legalize and criminalize activity all in the same text, it all depends on how its interpreted and enforced.
You give the taxation authority the ability to regulate political speech and you might as well wipe your ass with the Constitution.
National sales tax where size of government is directly related to the economy. Instead of having the "government we deserve" we can have "the government we can afford."
:D
Has some other benefits as well. Since most states already have a state sales tax, it would most likely be administered by the states for the fed government, since the bureaucracy and system already exists and is running (again, in most states). This would give the states some leverage over the feds as well, which has been missing at least since the 17th amendment
--
montanadave
06-04-13, 22:16
It's not a regulation, it's a section of law. See the 1st Amendment. It's being interpreted that way now, as a means of hammering the political opposition, it was intended to simply differentiate between political and non-political activity, not regulate that activity.
Laws are interpreted, laws are enforced. That's the thing. Laws legalize and criminalize activity all in the same text, it all depends on how its interpreted and enforced.
You give the taxation authority the ability to regulate political speech and you might as well wipe your ass with the Constitution.
We both know the reason these groups seek 501(c)(4) status rather than registering as 527 groups is they wish to keep their donor lists secret. They're all political action groups spending beaucoup bucks to influence elections. The public has a right to know who's trying to buy their vote.
They can have all the freedom of speech they can buy. Nobody's stopping them. But they should have the balls to tell John Q. Public who's footing the bill.
National sales tax where size of government is directly related to the economy. Instead of having the "government we deserve" we can have "the government we can afford."
:D
Gotta starve the beast somehow ya know :D
We both know the reason these groups seek 501(c)(4) status rather than registering as 527 groups is they wish to keep their donor lists secret. They're all political action groups spending beaucoup bucks to influence elections. The public has a right to know who's trying to buy their vote.
They can have all the freedom of speech they can buy. Nobody's stopping them. But they should have the balls to tell John Q. Public who's footing the bill.
There is no reason except intimidation and donor suppression that donor lists should be made public.
And general advocacy is not political influence peddling.
--
montanadave
06-04-13, 23:55
There is no reason except intimidation and donor suppression that donor lists should be made public.
And general advocacy is not political influence peddling.
--
Bullshit!
You think the Koch brothers or George Soros are easily intimidated? 501(c)(4) groups poured more "dark money" into the past election cycle than all the PACs combined and they abused these IRS regulations to conceal where their funding was coming from.
Like I said before, folks are free to speak their minds. I'd just like to know who's really doing the talking.
Gutshot John
06-05-13, 18:29
Bullshit!
You think the Koch brothers or George Soros are easily intimidated? 501(c)(4) groups poured more "dark money" into the past election cycle than all the PACs combined and they abused these IRS regulations to conceal where their funding was coming from.
Like I said before, folks are free to speak their minds. I'd just like to know who's really doing the talking.
Exactly...these are grassroots organizations...mostly average citizens. Koch brothers represent a fraction of those groups, and it should be noted that the Koch brothers give heavily to charity including NPR.
I don't think you have all the facts at your disposal, for instance PACs dont do dark/soft money, by definition, PAC money is hard money.
Exactly...these are grassroots organizations...mostly average citizens. Koch brothers represent a fraction of those groups, and it should be noted that the Koch brothers give heavily to charity including NPR.
I don't think you have all the facts at your disposal, for instance PACs dont do dark/soft money, by definition, PAC money is hard money.
GSJ -- I am a little confused here. Were you more in agreement with me or MD?
It starts off like you agree with him more but ends up like you agree with me more.
Thanks for any clarification.
--
Gutshot John
06-05-13, 23:05
GSJ -- I am a little confused here. Were you more in agreement with me or MD?
It starts off like you agree with him more but ends up like you agree with me more.
Thanks for any clarification.
--
with you
I don't take issue with Ms. Kenney's testimony and I certainly do not condone the IRS specifically targeting one political group over another.
The IRS should be targeting EVERY political group applying for tax exempt 501(c)(4) status.
The 501(c)(4) tax exempt status was designed for "social welfare organizations."
That's all well and good with an honest and impartial government agency. Problem is we don't have that. What we are seeing exposed is that if the moral views of an organization run contrary to those in power, they are deemed to not be qualified for the status they seek, but if the moral viewpoint of the organization aligns with the party and ideology in power, they deem you "impartial" and acceptable. This sort of hypocrisy is the problem.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.