Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Extras | All Access e-Edition | Home RSS

Reed demands accountability, names from IRS at hearing

May 26, 2013

Rep. Tom Reed and the full Ways and Means Committee friday held a hearing on the Internal Revenue Service targeting of political groups....

« Back to Article

sort: oldest | newest




May-27-13 9:22 AM

No, I do think they should investigate. Investigate and then change the law which is too vague and to me is the root of the problem.

This was not the huge scandal though that many are making it out to be. It was wrong for sure, profiling is wrong. They need to make the law more precise by just changing a word or two to clarify exactly what is a social welfare group and how much political activity is too much. Leaving it up to the low level workers, results in things like this..profiling. which again I state is WRONG..

As for treason.....I think it is anti american..anti worker, people, security, welfare...for a group to send a letter to members of our Congress telling them NOT TO DO THEIR JOB. Rather they were instructed to concentrate on any scandal they could come up with.

So much for country first huh?

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-27-13 9:10 AM

Nathan..go to jail?

For what????

Time you turn off whatever you are listening to and start to read some of the real facts of this issue.

Good grief..have all of you read the directive from the Heritage foundation calling for the GOP in Congress to concentrate on the scandals..and NOT to legislate?

Now to me that is a scandal that needs investigation. Wonder if they are considered a 'social welfare' group and thus do not have to pay taxes or disclose their donor names?

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-26-13 6:57 PM

Judeye-are you saying we should do away with the oversight functions of Congress and just let any administration run amok? Why is it treasonous to investigate and seek answers to the IRS,and AP scandals? I don't understand your thoughts on that? I wish Rep Reed could wave some sort of magic wand but he has no sway with the dunderheads in Albany that run this welfare state. We need a Scott Walker down there! Just to get it straight do you think any organization that enjoys tax exempt status such as the SEIU,AFL-CIO,and the biggest contributor of all,the NEA not be allowed to contribute to political candidates?

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-26-13 6:33 PM

Tom Reed is part of the Ways and Means Committee and it is part of his job to look into this. I hope people go to jail.

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-26-13 5:40 PM

joew...Oh I want all of the groups..liberal conservative and all in between...who conduct political activities to be least for the part of their political activities. Just like churches when they become political. Just my take

What would I like Rep Reed to do? Try to change the law so it does not read primary social welfare with some political activity. Too vague for me..and seems like for the agency that was to determine what "some" political activity vs social welfare means.

What I really want from our Rep is to concentrate on what our area needs the most....JOBS. He needs to stop reading the directives from the Heritage foundation that told the GOP in congress to concentrate on the scandals and NOT to legislate. Where is the investigation of this type of treason? Yes, I know that is a strong word..and maybe a misuse of it...but direct congress not to work, is truly appalling to me. Especially when we have so many really important and critica

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-26-13 2:03 PM

Judeye-where did I say they were wrong?(the NAACP)I did not mention the 2004 campaign Judeye,I mentioned the 2000 campaign in which the NAACP spent 10 MILLION dollars. Never said it was wrong,I said if they enjoy their status,why not American Crossroads? Read what I wrote!I noticed you did not comment on what exactly you wish Rep Reed to do,nor did you comment about the reasons for the Obama scandal. Have you no answer to those?

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-26-13 10:58 AM

joew...Washington Post Staff Writer Friday, September 1, 2006 "Nearly two years after a controversial decision to investigate the NAACP for criticizing President Bush during the 2004 presidential campaign, the Internal Revenue Service has ruled that the remarks did not violate the group's tax-exempt status."

Yikes...where was the Congressional hearing??? Where was the outrage from conservative groups?

"Of the more than $256 million spent by social welfare nonprofits on ads in the 2012 elections, at least 80 percent came from conservative groups, according to FEC figures tallied by the Center for Responsive Politics."

We need to change this law whereby groups can claim tax exempt status and not have to disclose their donors...


3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-26-13 9:01 AM

Please tell me what it is you wish Rep Reed to do to create jobs here in our area Judeye? The point of the investigation into the Obama administration scandal is that certain groups of people were subjected to ridiculous scrutiny and questions based on their political persuasion. The fact that none were denied is not even relevant. Asking for peoples facebook contacts,are you kidding me? You failed to mention some other rather large groups(501(c)4) such as The League of Conservation voters,The Sierra Club,Planned Parenthood,The National Abortion Rights League,and The NAACP just to name a few. The NAACP invested 10 million in the 2000 Presidential election. Since the definition of Social Welfare is"the well being of the entire society" and is not the same as the standard of living,why would American Crossroads not be allowed that status?

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-26-13 8:12 AM

Another smoke screen so he does not have to do the real work that the people of his district want him to do....JOBS.

Profiling is WRONG. We should all know that (huh sheriff Arpaio). But set the record is the wording of the IRS rules that created this mess in the first place.

The 501 (c) status allows groups to be tax exempt and not to disclose their donors. They are to be primary SOCIAL WELFARE groups but can engage SOME political activities. Since Citizens United, the number of applications for this status grew from 1,700 to 3,400. The low level workers in attempt to deal with the large number began to target groups with Tea or Patriot in their name for further SCRUNITY.

NOT ONE such group was DENIED the status. The only group that was denied was a LIBERAL GROUP.

Want to solve this Rep Reed...change the wording of the 501 (c) status.

Really does anyone truly believe that Karl Rove's group is primarily a 'social welfare' group and NOT politica

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-26-13 8:07 AM

And while he's at it, Fat Uncle Fester Tom Reed can push for changes to 501(c)(4), (c)(5) and (c)(6) tax codes which make for solid, clear distinctions and definitions between organizations receiving tax exempt status for truly promoting social welfare, and those using the code as a farce for political campaign purposes.

But Fat Uncle Fester is more interested in grandstanding for fat headlines than he is for making much needed changes -- but that's too much hard work...

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 10 of 10 comments

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
Remember my email address.


I am looking for:
News, Blogs & Events Web