NO! Taxpayers should not be subsidizing these harmful groups!
70%
NO! It's just a ploy to avoid disclosing donor information.
30%
Comments
Thom's Blog Is On the Move
By webmaster
Hello All
Thom's blog in this space and moving to a new home.
Please follow us across to hartmannreport.com - this will be the only place going forward to read Thom's blog posts and articles.
Images of Thom
From Screwed:
"Thom Hartmann’s book explains in simple language and with concrete research the details of the Neo-con’s war against the American middle class. It proves what many have intuited and serves to remind us that without a healthy, employed, and vital middle class, America is no more than the richest Third World country on the planet."
From The Thom Hartmann Reader:
"In an age rife with media-inspired confusion and political cowardice, we yearn for a decent, caring, deeply human soul whose grasp of the problems confronting us provides a light by which we can make our way through the quagmire of lies, distortions, pandering, and hollow self-puffery that strips the American Dream of its promise. How lucky we are, then, to have access to the wit, wisdom, and willingness of Thom Hartmann, who shares with us here that very light, grown out of his own life experience."
From Screwed:
"Once again, Thom Hartmann hits the bull’s eye with a much needed exposé of the so-called ‘free market.’ Anyone concerned about the future of our nation needs to read Screwed now."
I dont think all political groups are harmful. But they should be considered like any other busines.
If they are so afraid of disclosure, then maybe that's more the reason they should be disclosed. In addition to exploiting the non profit taxes through fraud, their donors are also laundering money. And like Thom said on his show, social welfare groups are rarely Conservative leaning. I understand why the IRS went after them in particular. Seems it's not OK if a liberal group or person does something when the conservatives or right leaning people do more of it all the time. Like they say, takes a crook to know one. People need to know where the opinions are coming from. It makes all the difference when you know the name and/or type of corporation or the person behind the ads because when you understand that, it gives you an idea of why they are for or against something or someone. Hope I made sense here. Sometimes I get a feeling that is difficult to put into words. :)
We need to know where the money is coming from and we the revenue.
Wish I could vote both options, but it is obvious to me that the reason they applied for 501(c)(4) status is to avoid having to disclose their donors.
All contributions to politicians should be subject to a 99.99999% tax. Since they don't have to cajones for public financing this may be the only way to get the goddamn money out of policymaking, marginalize the Citizens United travesty, and return gubbamint of the PEOPLE, by the PEOPLE, and, for the PEOPLE, back to the PEEPUL!!!!!! Same tax rate applies to PACs and other " not for profits" slithering around as 501(c)(3)'s and (c)(4)'s. DO YOU HEAR US KKKARL ROVE!!!!!!!!!!!
The ruling should be changed back to Primarily - the way it was written and approved. No one should get tax exempt unless it is for
the original reason - to help people - period. Any pollitics involved it should absolutely be denied.