More than 2,000 people gather in January 2011 to protest a meeting of the Koch brothers and other politically active financiers in Southern California.
Clandestine political financiers such as David H. Koch, who along with his brother Charles has bankrolled the tea party movement, may soon be hit with “gift taxes” for each donation to nonprofit political advocacy groups. The Internal Revenue Service has been able to tax such contributions since 1982, but it has rarely happened, The New York Times reports. The groups—so-called 501(c)(4) nonprofits—are forbidden to act for primarily political purposes.
The Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United ruling opened the way for a virtually endless flood of corporate campaign funds. While the active role that IRS officials have now decided to play is welcome, it can only address a small portion of the nation’s profound campaign finance problem.
Billionaire George Soros, a leading donor to progressive causes, may also be affected by the IRS decision.—ARK
The New York Times:
These groups have been drawing more and more criticism, from President Obama as well as others, as they have proliferated and funneled vast sums of money in support of campaigns and causes, without having to publicly disclose their donors. During the midterm cycle, for example, groups like Crossroads GPS, which has ties to the Republican strategist Karl Rove, and Americans for Prosperity, backed by Mr. Koch and his brother Charles, were heavily involved in politicking, spurring campaign finance watchdogs to complain that they were largely unregulated and flouting election and nonprofit laws.
The organizations in question were established as nonprofit corporations under a section of the tax law, 501(c)(4), and the rules governing them say their primary purpose cannot be political. Unlike contributions to charities, however, donations to these groups have always been subject to a gift tax. But tax experts and campaign finance experts say the I.R.S. had not enforced that rule, until now.
… “There are a whole heck of a lot of people misusing (c)(4) groups as a means of getting around campaign finance regulations, and we lack a coherent system of laws to deal with that,” said Donald B. Tobin, a legal expert on the intersection of campaign finance and tax laws at the Moritz College of Law at Ohio State University. “Now here’s a stick, frankly, that says there are consequences for doing that.”
If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.
Lafayette you argue excellently well. Yet the question that remains
is whether or not SCOTUS does or does not function within its
purview and jurisdiction as non-partisan? Since the present court
is without a doubt slanted toward the conservative side, and one
steeped in conservative values must be convinced by the liberal
Justices to decide cases in favor of socially-centered consistency,
does the evolved partisanship give actual balance and objectivity to
whether decisions are in fact legitimate, legitimate not in the sense
of lawful as obviously they are lawful according to present law, but
are they legitimate as defined as justifiable?
The reasoning the founders of the Constitution used was to insulate
these judges of the final court from politics, and the oscillating
vicissitudes of public opinion, so they could be impartial in their
judgment without fear of retaliation for an unpopular decision. It
was to put them at a mental level above current political and social
sentiments. If Supreme Court justices had to be re-installed every time
a political party in power changed, then decisions could be as tainted
by the desire to preserve their jobs as that which we see happens to
politicians. The logic is that if they have life tenure, then presumably
they can decide cases according to their interpretation of the law, and
not be influenced by the fear that their judgments will cost them their
positions.
BUT, and that is said emphatically we see that contrary to the
Constitutional intention, this does not happen and Supreme Court
justices to in fact slide into partisan influence and actually become
stilts to political party long and short term agendas.
So the next question is, how to root this out of the office? If it cannot
be excised from the person who sits in the position for life, then some
other public safeguards must be invented that will assure objectivity
and weighing the yea or nay decisions? The uneven number does help
since it prevents a split decision, and nine gives a broader stage to
debate the issues.
A poll taken in 2009 asking Should Supreme Court justices be
appointed to serve life terms? yielded the following results: 39.9% say
Yes, ironically, saying a court could become too partisan, 48.4% No,
that because of the longevity and the change in national political
temperament, a 10-year term would be more responsive, 11.6% said
they didn’t know because of the serendipity of illness and retirement
would give the possibility of a sitting president to load the court with
sympathetic-to-their-perspective justices.
Clansmen works for me, but then anyone who would subvert the majority of the people for a personalized agenda of the one or the few seems more correctly called ...opportunists,
I see little difference in the Koch agenda and the Clan, except maybe the Koch’s butter their bigotry and disdain with fancy silverware and are a tad bit more lobbyist about it. Welding s pricey silver spoon used for making tea and digging support and prostituting Republicans like Wisconson Walker!
So throughout history the few controlling the many have had many titles, ... such as Fascism, dictators, monarchy, plutocrats, pope, Emperor, Osama ben Laden, ect, ect. ... and my favorite the Koch’s seem to fit what I call,... clansman opportunists.
These groups have been drawing more and more criticism, from President Obama as well as others, as they have proliferated and funneled vast sums of money in support of campaigns and causes, without having to publicly disclose their donors.
The Electoral Funding “System” in the US has been broke for a long, long time. And each effort to repair it always contains a loop-hole for the Far Right to squeeze its funding through.
When the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (aka McCain-Feingold) was passed in 2002, it did bridle somewhat aberrant campaign funding. But it also left the PAC-option as a loop-hole. The consequence is that there are now 4000 PACs in the US the funnel corporate money to candidates.
As well, we have a Rabid Right Roberts Supreme Court that struck down some key parts of the BCRA as well as their monumental act of “legislating from the bench” that annulled limits on corporate donations because they were supposedly against the First Amendment’s safeguards of “Freedom of Speech”. (Citizens United vs Federal Election Commission, 2010)
As if corporations were citizens who were due the full constitutional protection of the law. No developed country on earth has found that corporations have the same rights as individuals as regards Freedom of Speech. And none are expected to do so any time soon.
This Supreme Court is making a Banana Republic out of the US. It is a shame that they have lifetime tenure, which is far too long for a Court that likes to legislate-from-the-bench.
Legislation is the foundation of the laws of the land. They are passed by a legislature duly elected by the people. The Supremes are not elected by anyone but nominated by the PotUS. What makes them think that they can go beyond a strict interpretation of the Constitution?
However, at the same time, were it not for the Supremes breaking new ground as regards womens’ abortion rights (in Roe Vs Wade, 1973), women today would have no right to an abortion whatsoever.
So, that sword cuts both ways.
Abortion like Campaign Funding is a matter that requires a legislative foundation. And when it does obtain that support, the Supreme Court has no business whatsoever finagling the thrust of the jurisprudence by finding supposed “contraventions of Constitutional Rights” - which is pure fiction on their part.
As well, the ruling was highly divisive, since its was far from a unanimous finding of the Supreme Court. Meaning that with any change in is its composition the ruling (Citizens United vs Federal Election Commission) will be overturned in the future.
There are good reasons why the Supreme Court decides not to hear all the cases that are presented to it for a judgment. The best is that present laws do not sufficiently framework the issue at hand. They should not themselves be deciding that Legislative Framework.
And we, the sheeple, should be able to more easily generate referendums than is presently the case. Yes, California is an example of Referendums Gone Awry. But that does not mean that referendums need interfere with the functioning of governance.
In Switzerland, a referendum can be voted upon by only 5% of population’s signatures to a petition. In the 150 years that this right has been accorded to the Swiss, not once has a referendum interfered with either the functioning of its Federal or local governance bodies. Why?
Because both Federal and local legislature are able to put up a counter-proposition—and it is the ballot box that decides between the two. That is, truly, what is called Vox Populi (the voice of the people).
True democracies also have this place for the expression of the will of the people in terms of legislation.
Our country has been commandeered by the Republican wealthy and
corporate elite class whose power has reached into ordinary people’s
lives and for its own mercenary and opportunistic purposes is trying
to turn the American people inside out. The world has entered a new
phase of human action and people all over the world are taking their
government to task and reconstructing it to reflect the will, justice, and
equality of their people. It is our time. We must stop the Republicans
from confiscating every single quarter of our lives. For every election
they win, they command just that much more digging graves for us.
Each ordinary American has the responsibility to stop them.
http://other98.com/about/
The Other 98%
A grassroots network of concerned citizens fed up with the status quo
in Washington that seeks practical solutions to the many challenges
facing America. The Other 98% stands against the bankers, CEOs and
lobbyists who have hijacked our American democracy to serve
themselves at the expense of everyone else.
The mission of The Other 98% is to further a massive new movement
started April 15, 2010 to eject corporate lobbyists out of DC, hold
elected officials accountable, and fix the US democracy to stop the 2%
who have de facto organized to seize control of our America and
counterforce Washington work for the ordinary people, the other 98% of
Americans.
Clandestine political financiers such as David H. Koch,
Clandestine? It’s no secret that David Koch sits on the Boards of Reason Foundation and Cato Institute, and Charles sits on the Board of the Mercatus Center at George Mason University and founded the Market-Based Management Institute, and never has been. It’s only “secret” to people who don’t have a fucking clue. The same people who have no clue as to what real libertarianism is really about. If you think you know what libertarianism is, ask yourself if you know the difference between consequentialist libertarianism and deontological libertarianism. Then there’s always the paleo-libertarians, but we won’t get into Pat Buchanan. Go ahead, you can use Wiki for the basics. Then visit C4SS.
Why .... those people in the churches who support war
and murder and death and torture aren’t going to be
raptured. Nor are the people in the churches who
support giving all the money to wall street and
spending the rest on wars and then telling the poor
that they have to balance their budget on their backs.
These right wing Christians are most certainly going to
be around after May 21, because Heaven won’t have them.
Too Soon to Tell: The Case for Hope, Continued
Email 
Print
Share
Email to a friend
Newsletter 
Like Us
Follow Us
Get Our Feed
By Shenonymous, May 15, 2011 at 8:29 am Link to this comment
Lafayette you argue excellently well. Yet the question that remains
is whether or not SCOTUS does or does not function within its
purview and jurisdiction as non-partisan? Since the present court
is without a doubt slanted toward the conservative side, and one
steeped in conservative values must be convinced by the liberal
Justices to decide cases in favor of socially-centered consistency,
does the evolved partisanship give actual balance and objectivity to
whether decisions are in fact legitimate, legitimate not in the sense
of lawful as obviously they are lawful according to present law, but
are they legitimate as defined as justifiable?
The reasoning the founders of the Constitution used was to insulate
these judges of the final court from politics, and the oscillating
vicissitudes of public opinion, so they could be impartial in their
judgment without fear of retaliation for an unpopular decision. It
was to put them at a mental level above current political and social
sentiments. If Supreme Court justices had to be re-installed every time
a political party in power changed, then decisions could be as tainted
by the desire to preserve their jobs as that which we see happens to
politicians. The logic is that if they have life tenure, then presumably
they can decide cases according to their interpretation of the law, and
not be influenced by the fear that their judgments will cost them their
positions.
BUT, and that is said emphatically we see that contrary to the
Constitutional intention, this does not happen and Supreme Court
justices to in fact slide into partisan influence and actually become
stilts to political party long and short term agendas.
So the next question is, how to root this out of the office? If it cannot
be excised from the person who sits in the position for life, then some
other public safeguards must be invented that will assure objectivity
and weighing the yea or nay decisions? The uneven number does help
since it prevents a split decision, and nine gives a broader stage to
debate the issues.
A poll taken in 2009 asking Should Supreme Court justices be
Report thisappointed to serve life terms? yielded the following results: 39.9% say
Yes, ironically, saying a court could become too partisan, 48.4% No,
that because of the longevity and the change in national political
temperament, a 10-year term would be more responsive, 11.6% said
they didn’t know because of the serendipity of illness and retirement
would give the possibility of a sitting president to load the court with
sympathetic-to-their-perspective justices.
By Leefeller, May 15, 2011 at 8:20 am Link to this comment
Clansmen works for me, but then anyone who would subvert the majority of the people for a personalized agenda of the one or the few seems more correctly called ...opportunists,
I see little difference in the Koch agenda and the Clan, except maybe the Koch’s butter their bigotry and disdain with fancy silverware and are a tad bit more lobbyist about it. Welding s pricey silver spoon used for making tea and digging support and prostituting Republicans like Wisconson Walker!
So throughout history the few controlling the many have had many titles, ... such as Fascism, dictators, monarchy, plutocrats, pope, Emperor, Osama ben Laden, ect, ect. ... and my favorite the Koch’s seem to fit what I call,... clansman opportunists.
Report thisBy Lafayette, May 15, 2011 at 1:50 am Link to this comment
LEGISLATING FROM THE BENCH
These groups have been drawing more and more criticism, from President Obama as well as others, as they have proliferated and funneled vast sums of money in support of campaigns and causes, without having to publicly disclose their donors.
The Electoral Funding “System” in the US has been broke for a long, long time. And each effort to repair it always contains a loop-hole for the Far Right to squeeze its funding through.
When the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (aka McCain-Feingold) was passed in 2002, it did bridle somewhat aberrant campaign funding. But it also left the PAC-option as a loop-hole. The consequence is that there are now 4000 PACs in the US the funnel corporate money to candidates.
As well, we have a Rabid Right Roberts Supreme Court that struck down some key parts of the BCRA as well as their monumental act of “legislating from the bench” that annulled limits on corporate donations because they were supposedly against the First Amendment’s safeguards of “Freedom of Speech”. (Citizens United vs Federal Election Commission, 2010)
As if corporations were citizens who were due the full constitutional protection of the law. No developed country on earth has found that corporations have the same rights as individuals as regards Freedom of Speech. And none are expected to do so any time soon.
This Supreme Court is making a Banana Republic out of the US. It is a shame that they have lifetime tenure, which is far too long for a Court that likes to legislate-from-the-bench.
Legislation is the foundation of the laws of the land. They are passed by a legislature duly elected by the people. The Supremes are not elected by anyone but nominated by the PotUS. What makes them think that they can go beyond a strict interpretation of the Constitution?
However, at the same time, were it not for the Supremes breaking new ground as regards womens’ abortion rights (in Roe Vs Wade, 1973), women today would have no right to an abortion whatsoever.
So, that sword cuts both ways.
Abortion like Campaign Funding is a matter that requires a legislative foundation. And when it does obtain that support, the Supreme Court has no business whatsoever finagling the thrust of the jurisprudence by finding supposed “contraventions of Constitutional Rights” - which is pure fiction on their part.
As well, the ruling was highly divisive, since its was far from a unanimous finding of the Supreme Court. Meaning that with any change in is its composition the ruling (Citizens United vs Federal Election Commission) will be overturned in the future.
There are good reasons why the Supreme Court decides not to hear all the cases that are presented to it for a judgment. The best is that present laws do not sufficiently framework the issue at hand. They should not themselves be deciding that Legislative Framework.
And we, the sheeple, should be able to more easily generate referendums than is presently the case. Yes, California is an example of Referendums Gone Awry. But that does not mean that referendums need interfere with the functioning of governance.
In Switzerland, a referendum can be voted upon by only 5% of population’s signatures to a petition. In the 150 years that this right has been accorded to the Swiss, not once has a referendum interfered with either the functioning of its Federal or local governance bodies. Why?
Because both Federal and local legislature are able to put up a counter-proposition—and it is the ballot box that decides between the two. That is, truly, what is called Vox Populi (the voice of the people).
True democracies also have this place for the expression of the will of the people in terms of legislation.
Report thisBy Shenonymous, May 14, 2011 at 10:31 am Link to this comment
If you didn’t already know on some level, conscious or subliminal:
http://other98.com/david-koch-theater-rebranding/
Guerilla Action NAILS NYC’s David Koch Theater During Red Carpet
Event
Our country has been commandeered by the Republican wealthy and
corporate elite class whose power has reached into ordinary people’s
lives and for its own mercenary and opportunistic purposes is trying
to turn the American people inside out. The world has entered a new
phase of human action and people all over the world are taking their
government to task and reconstructing it to reflect the will, justice, and
equality of their people. It is our time. We must stop the Republicans
from confiscating every single quarter of our lives. For every election
they win, they command just that much more digging graves for us.
Each ordinary American has the responsibility to stop them.
http://other98.com/about/
The Other 98%
A grassroots network of concerned citizens fed up with the status quo
in Washington that seeks practical solutions to the many challenges
facing America. The Other 98% stands against the bankers, CEOs and
lobbyists who have hijacked our American democracy to serve
themselves at the expense of everyone else.
The mission of The Other 98% is to further a massive new movement
Report thisstarted April 15, 2010 to eject corporate lobbyists out of DC, hold
elected officials accountable, and fix the US democracy to stop the 2%
who have de facto organized to seize control of our America and
counterforce Washington work for the ordinary people, the other 98% of
Americans.
By Fat Freddy, May 14, 2011 at 9:11 am Link to this comment
Clandestine political financiers such as David H. Koch,
Clandestine? It’s no secret that David Koch sits on the Boards of Reason Foundation and Cato Institute, and Charles sits on the Board of the Mercatus Center at George Mason University and founded the Market-Based Management Institute, and never has been. It’s only “secret” to people who don’t have a fucking clue. The same people who have no clue as to what real libertarianism is really about. If you think you know what libertarianism is, ask yourself if you know the difference between consequentialist libertarianism and deontological libertarianism. Then there’s always the paleo-libertarians, but we won’t get into Pat Buchanan. Go ahead, you can use Wiki for the basics. Then visit C4SS.
Report thisBy Samson, May 13, 2011 at 6:08 pm Link to this comment
Why .... those people in the churches who support war
and murder and death and torture aren’t going to be
raptured. Nor are the people in the churches who
support giving all the money to wall street and
spending the rest on wars and then telling the poor
that they have to balance their budget on their backs.
These right wing Christians are most certainly going to
Report thisbe around after May 21, because Heaven won’t have them.
By Leefeller, May 13, 2011 at 8:34 am Link to this comment
While they are at it,... tax the damn churches and the born yesterday Christians, and hurry up to make sure they do it before May 21.
Report this