Earlier this week, we reported that Democratic Sen. Michael Bennet was one of six signers to a letter urging the Internal Revenue Service to crack down on non-profit groups with a potentially political side. He even went so far in his press release to suggest that the IRS take a look at groups like Karl Rove’s conservative group. Now, critics are calling for Bennet to treat liberal groups with the same scrutiny, but will he?
Our view – probably not.
Bennet’s job as the head of the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee is, simply, to elect Democratic candidates. C4s and the other nonprofit operations that give advantages to Democrats have been part of their playbook for nearly a decade, particularly here in Colorado.
Let’s put this in perspective. One of the left’s most generous C4s is the League of Conservation voters. Does anyone doubt they are a liberal front group? In case you’re doubting, take a look at their spending habits in the 2012 election:
Out of the nearly $11 million that LCV spent nationwide in the 2012 election, not one penny went toward Republican candidates. We would bet that the $500,000+ that went against Democrats was the group playing in primaries. Further, why would Bennet bite the hand that feeds him? That’s right, Bennet, himself, was the recipient of help from a C4 to the tune of over $850,000 in his scorched earth campaign against Republican Ken Buck.
Again, from Open Secrets:
Of course, the most recognizable “social welfare organization” would be OFA – once Obama for America, turned into Organizing for Action – which some believe will be filed as a C4. According to U.S. News and World Reports, OFA’s web site claims: “In carrying its work, OFA will operate as a ‘social welfare’ organization within the meaning of section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code.”
Seems like a pretty clear indication that the group plans to file for C4 status.
So, again, will Bennet – who has been helped tremendously by liberal C4s and is the head of the DSCC – denounce both conservative and liberal C4s? Of course not, that doesn’t benefit him or his party. His letter was simply about trying to crush the competition, and his protests are hollow.
Micheal Bennet….. Translation……Obama Lapdog. Just another liberal trying to help "Transform America", I am sick of him and Udall.
Why should we pay taxes to speak? These non-profits get contributions (after tax money paid by the contributors) and then spend the money in a form of speech. Anyone working for one of these non-profits also pays income taxes on what they receive.
Your discussion about "doing social good", "social benefit" shows that you don't understand that those contributing believe they are doing social good, and you want government to decide what speech gets taxed. In other words, you don't believe in free speech, and that some speech (that not doing "social good" as government decides) should be taxed.
The bigger problem is that we have to let groups get a tax break, when they clearly aren't doing social good. I think both sides take advantage of the tax code here in gray if not blatantly wrong manners. Karl Rove is the worst offender, but not the only. If there truly is a social benefit, then the tax break should go towards that percentage of the work the organization does. The political "education" should be non-deductible. The problem with that is who makes the decision of which actions add to the social good and which actions are blatantly political. The easier approach would be to eliminate the deduction for all and let the free market sort it out. Too many people love their pet cause for that to happen. I think we are stuck with this deduction and the battles over it just like we are stuck with the mortgage deduction which incentivises people to build more lavish and larger houses than they really need. Of course the IRS is bad at regulating politics. It's not their business.
Bennett does absolutely nothing, just like his partner in crime Udall. Vote them out.
bennet will be dismissed.
Bennet is a obama ass kissing liberal lapdog….