Chuck Schumer Calls For The IRS To Stop The Tea Party
Free Speech: The IRS scandal is not only not over but is getting worse, with a call by New York's senior senator for the already-politicized agency to use its power to tax to destroy the conservative grass-roots movement.
Arguing that the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United decision allowed Tea Party groups to "funnel millions of undisclosed dollars into campaigns with ads that distort the truth and attack government," Charles Schumer wants the IRS and other government agencies to take on the Tea Party through their administrative powers.
"It is clear that we will not pass anything legislatively as long as the House of Representatives is in Republican control, but there are many things that can be done administratively by the IRS and other government agencies," Schumer said in a speech before the leftist think tank Center for American Progress.
Calling for the IRS to use its powers to resume war on the First Amendment and free speech he doesn't like in the hopes of electing more Democrats, Schumer said: "We must redouble those efforts immediately."
Schumer was the author of the 2010 Disclose Act that failed to make it through Congress but would have required the disclosure of corporate donors to tax-exempt organizations, and membership and donor lists of the groups running "issue" ads.
"The bill was designed to embarrass companies," Schumer admitted, and its "deterrent effect should not be underestimated."
Advocating the use of government power to harass and intimidate political opponents is nothing new to Schumer. Along with Democratic Sens. Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, Tom Udall of New Mexico and Al Franken of Minnesota, he sent a similar letter to IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman in February 2012 asking the IRS to investigate 12 conservative groups he accused of violating their tax-exempt status and engaging in coordinated political activity.
This effort to use government power to fundamentally transform our political system more along the lines of the Venezuelan model includes new IRS rules for 501(c)(4) organizations that would redefine "candidate-related political activity" and make virtually everything such tax-exempt political groups do a taxable activity.
Washington, D.C., attorney Cleta Mitchell, who represents a number of the Tea Party groups targeted by the IRS, says that under the new rules candidate-related activities would cover just about everything a 501(c)(4) typically does, including candidate debates, guides for voting, lobbying at the grass roots, issue advocacy as well as any public statements by officers of 501(c)(4)s that reference incumbents and candidates.
Schumer's call for government to punish its political enemies comes at the same time the IRS is conducting a Hollywood witch hunt openly targeting for "special scrutiny" a group known as the Friends of Abe. Named after Abraham Lincoln, it has about 1,500 members involved in various aspects of the film industry who meet to discuss politics and listen to conservative leaders.
The group doesn't engage in overt political activities or endorse candidates. It functions as a sort of a conservative support group for Hollywood conservatives in that liberal bastion and seeks to keep its members' names secret for fear of career consequences.
Jeremy Boreing, executive director of Friends of Abe, insists his organization has "absolutely no political agenda" and exists only to "create fellowship among like-minded individuals." What bothers the IRS is the fact the group, which has applied for tax-exempt status, invites largely conservative speakers.
The ability of people to peacefully assemble to petition their government for redress of grievances is under attack as the IRS and Democratic senators continue to ask, "Are you now, or have you ever been, a conservative?"
Chuck Schumer Schumer was born in Brooklyn, the son of Selma (née Rosen) and Abraham Schumer.[4] His family is Jewish, descended from immigrants from Russia, Poland, and Austria.[5] He attended public schools in Brooklyn, scoring 1600 on the SAT, and graduated as the valedictorian from James Madison High School in 1967.[6] Schumer competed for Madison High on the It's Academic television quiz show.[7] He attended Harvard College, where he became interested in politics and campaigned for Eugene McCarthy in 1968.[8] After completing his undergraduate degree, he continued to Harvard Law School, earning his Juris Doctor with honors in 1974. Schumer passed the New York State Bar Exam in early 1975, but never practiced law, entering politics instead.[9] A native of Brooklyn and graduate of Harvard College and its law school, he was a three-term member of the New York State Assembly, serving from 1975 to 1980
In 1980, 16th District Congresswoman Elizabeth Holtzman won the Democratic nomination for the Senate seat of Republican Jacob Javits. Schumer ran for Holtzman's vacated House seat and won. He was re-elected eight times from the Brooklyn and Queens-based district, which changed numbers twice in his tenure (it was numbered the 16th from 1981 to 1983, the 10th from 1983 to 1993 and the 9th from 1993). In 1982, as a result of redistricting, Schumer faced a potential matchup with his mentor, veteran Brooklyn congressman Steve Solarz.[13] In preparation, Schumer "set about making friends on Wall Street, tapping the city’s top law firms and securities houses for campaign donations. 'I told them I looked like I had a very difficult reapportionment fight. If I were to stand a chance of being re-elected, I needed some help,' he would later tell the Associated Press."[13] Schumer was elected to the US senate in 1998.
Govern or Control... You sound genuinely disturbed by the questioning of the status quo.... and I thought it was progressives who liked change and questioning the established order... guess that only applies if it is your favored change. I have serious differences with some tea party advocates but like them, libertarians are a threat to big government control freaks... They must be abolished! The cannot be allowed to spread their seeds of hatred and disapproval of expensive, worthless and debilitating government policy. Hum, all of this manipulation of IRS rules that are designed to stifle a segment of discourse sounds, in a democracy, reason enough to get rid of it... never mind the stupid, complex, unfair and totally unnecessary bureaucracy created to extract the property of hard working Americans for... less than value for money service.
PHOENIX (AP) – The Arizona Republican Party formally censured Sen. John McCain on Saturday, citing a voting record they say is insufficiently conservative.
The resolution to censure McCain was approved by a voice-vote during a meeting of state committee members in Tempe, state party spokesman Tim Sifert said. It needed signatures from at least 20 percent of state committee members to reach the floor for debate.
McCain isn't up for re-election until 2016, when will turn 80. He announced in October that he was considering running for a sixth term.
According to the resolution, the 2008 Republican presidential nominee has campaigned as a conservative but has lent his support to issues "associated with liberal Democrats," such as immigration reform and funding the federal health care law.
Several Republican county committees recently censured McCain.
Timothy Schwartz, the Legislative District 30 Republican chairman who helped write the resolution, said the censure showed that McCain was losing support from his own party.
"We would gladly embrace Sen. McCain if he stood behind us and represented us," Schwartz said.
WARCOM and GROUP TWO/ONE have pushed out the uniform policy for NWU III and any patches worn on the sleeve.
All personnel are only authorized to wear the matching “AOR” American Flag patch on the right shoulder. You are no longer authorized to wear the “Don’t Tread On Me” patch.
Again the only patch authorized for wear is the American flag on the right shoulder. Please pass the word to all
When a friend of mine asked his leadership the same question, he was told, “The Jack is too closely associated with radical groups.” We must assume that this thought policeman embedded in the SEAL community is speaking of the Tea Party, whose flag (which also dates from the American Revolution) depicts a snake with the same defiant slogan as The Navy Jack.
Gerald Molen, the producer of Dinesh D'Souza's documentary film "2016: Obama's America," says he never feared his government before he learned that D'Souza is under federal investigation for election fraud.
According to an indictment made public Thursday, D'Souza is accused of contributing $20,000 to a political campaign in 2012, even though the legal limit is $5,000. D'Souza allegedly promised to reimburse others if they would contribute to a candidate widely believed to be Wendy Long of New York. Long, a Republican, ran unsuccessfully against Democrat Kirsten Gillibrand in 2012 for New York's U.S. Senate seat.
Some, including Molen, believe the indictment is political payback for D'Souza's film, which was critical of President Barack Obama. Among other things, it raised questions about whether Obama had embraced the anti-colonial philosophy of his father and said his future actions could be predicted based on that philosophy.
Molen, who also produced the Academy-award winning "Schindler's List," said he has not spoken to D'Souza since he learned of the indictment, and wouldn't make comments about the specific case until he's learned all the facts.
Still, he said he would not be surprised if the probe is politically motivated.
Asked by Malzberg if he ever felt threatened or had any feelings they should not have been making the film, Molen answered, "No. This is America. I've never had that feeling," adding, "I've never had the occasion to think that I had to fear my government. I never had the thought that I had reason to think I had to look over my shoulder until now."
"No. This is America. I've never had that feeling," adding, "I've never had the occasion to think that I had to fear my government. I never had the thought that I had reason to think I had to look over my shoulder until now."
Neither establishment Republicans nor tea party conservatives are monolithic. There are some establishment Republicans who are conservative on policy but strongly believe tea partyers are making a huge and self-destructive tactical error in insisting on a hard-line approach, especially in their seeming willingness to allow the government to shut down.
Many of them truly believe they are just as conservative on policy as we tea partyers, but think we will never advance conservatism unless we soften our negotiating posture toward Democrats while they control the presidency and the Senate, because advancing conservatism is all about winning national elections.
But there are also many among the establishment wing who are by no stretch as conservative on policy as tea partyers. They have made their peace with a large, intrusive federal government and wouldn't roll back much of the New Deal or Great Society even if they had control of all three branches of government.
Many of them favor an "energetic" federal government that implements innovative, proactive solutions to problems, rather than rolling back the government where we can and letting freedom ring and the market work its magic.
They are comfortable with higher levels of federal taxing and spending and with solutions emanating from Washington — such as in education, healthcare, and the environment — instead of decentralizing government control. So it is oversimplified and misleading to argue that the tea party and establishment Republicans differ only in tactics but not in policy.
The tea party wing isn't monolithic, either, in that it contains both social conservatives and social liberals, but it is unified in its opposition to a federal Leviathan that overtaxes, overspends, and overregulates.
We tea partyers are not the self-destructive purists that many establishment types portray us as being. We agree that national elections are critically important, but we don't agree that the best way to win elections is to avoid government shutdowns at all costs.
We believe that by standing firm on principle and articulating our positions clearly and unapologetically like Sen. Ted Cruz did, we will have a better chance of winning elections in the end. We reject the Democratic narrative that we will be blamed for every government shutdown — especially one caused by Obama's insistence on imposing Obamacare against the will of a strong majority of Americans.
Rick I know you're a great believer in what the media and government spoon feed you. There is a real life out there Rick. Open up and see it. Totalitarianism will not reign. Yes, a few generations of takers have become entrenched in our society. So easy it is to toe the progressive/liberal/socialist/communist line promoting a never ending multiplication of our children's and granchildren's debt. We will all be dead Rick, our decendents will be forced to fight off financial slavery. So yes, these things need to be said, even if you alone are the singular audience.
Cuomo: Pro-life people have “no place in the state of New York
"findings conclude that an overwhelming majority of New Yorkers support sensible restrictions on abortions, with eighty percent (80%) opposing unlimited abortion through the ninth month of pregnancy and seventy-five percent (75%) opposing changes in current law so that someone other than a doctor can perform an abortion"
First IRS, now FBI shafts tea party 'What kind of investigation is this?' http://www.wnd.com/2014/01/first-irs-now-fbi-shafts-tea-party WASHINGTON — “It appears that the FBI is in the pocket of the Department of Justice and the White House.”
That’s how attorney Cleta Mitchell described to WND the news that the FBI doesn’t plan to file criminal charges against anyone at the IRS for targeting conservative groups.
Mitchell has represented about a dozen conservative groups that were subjected to dubious, invasive and extra scrutiny by the IRS while applying for tax-exempt status.
She expressed a sarcastic skepticism that the Justice Department would ever fully investigate the IRS.
“To quote Faye Dunaway in the last scene in ‘Chinatown,’ when she yells at Jack Nicholson ‘… he OWNS the police.’”
“Therein lies the problem,” concluded the high-powered Washington attorney.
Tea-party advocates are upset the FBI does not seem interested in getting the story from the victims, only the purported victimizers.
“I can confirm that the FBI has not contacted me, any of my clients, or any other organizations who were victimized by the IRS,” Mitchell told WND.
“Some investigation,” she wryly added.
That was the identical experience of perhaps the most powerful person in the conservative grassroots movement, Jenny Beth Martin, president and co-founder of Tea Party Patriots, an umbrella organization supporting thousands of local organizations and millions of members.
“It’s amazing that this is the result of the supposed investigation,” she told WND. “The FBI never once contacted us. They never contacted any of our attorneys.”
“Tea Party Patriots and I are in touch with locals leaders around the country every single day – none of those people were contacted by the FBI,” said an exasperated and incredulous Martin.
Despite evidence from the Treasury Department that the IRS targeted conservative groups for extra scrutiny, law-enforcement officials leaked word to the Wall Street Journal that investigators didn’t find the kind of political bias or “enemy hunting” that would amount to a violation of criminal law.
“What kind of investigation is this – where you don’t even talk to and interview the people who were victimized in the crime?” wondered Martin.
WND asked her, as far as you can tell, is there actually an investigation?
“I never saw an investigation,” she said. “If there was, they were not talking to the people who were most affected. We were never contacted, and I’ve heard of no one who has been contacted.”
That echoed what Mitchell told the Wall Street Journal.
“As far as I can tell, nobody has actually done an investigation. This has been a big, bureaucratic, former-Soviet-Union-type investigation, which means that there was no investigation,” she said. “This is a deplorable abuse of the public trust, but I am not surprised.”
Sources told the paper the FBI discovered a mismanaged bureaucracy at the IRS merely bungled enforcement rules about tax-exemption applications it didn’t understand.
However, the evidence points to a much greater targeting of conservative groups than progressive organizations.
The audit of the targeting practice by Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) found only “30 percent of the organizations we identified with the words ‘progress’ or ‘progressive’ in their names were processed as potential political cases.”
“In comparison, our audit found that 100 percent of the tax-exempt applications with tea party, patriots, or 9/12 in their names were processed as potential political cases during the time frame of our audit.”
The IRS even admitted that conservative groups applying for tax-exempt status were inappropriately given close scrutiny between May 2010 and May 2012, which delayed approvals for months, and sometimes years.
“The evidence shows us that conservative groups were not only flagged, but targeted and abused by the IRS,” said Sarah Swinehart, spokeswoman for the House Ways and Means Committee.
The American Center for Law and Justice, or ACLJ, which represents 41 organizations in a federal lawsuit against the IRS, said the investigation is nothing more than a “sham” designed to protect those responsible.
“From Day 1, it was apparent the Obama administration was never really interested in getting to the truth. This latest revelation directly conflicts with the facts and evidence in our case – that our clients were deliberately singled out and targeted because of their conservative political beliefs.” said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the ACLJ.
After seven months, the FBI actually did contact the ACLJ late in December requesting interviews with several of their clients. But just days ago, the ACLJ said it would re-evaluate that request after it was revealed that a top Obama supporter in the Department of Justice was named to head-up the criminal investigation.
“The appointment of Barbara Bosserman – a major political donor – to oversee the criminal probe is a significant conflict of interest,” said Sekulow. “What’s amazing is that her short tenure at the helm – just a matter of days – apparently was long enough to conclude no criminal charges will be filed against those responsible for the targeting scheme.”
House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif., and Subcommittee Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, released a statement that was also critical of the appointment of Bosserman, because “congressional investigators independently discovered that a high-dollar contributor to the Obama administration failed to recuse herself.”
“These revelations further undermine the credibility of the Attorney General Holder and the Justice Department under his leadership. Given the circumstances, there is little reason for the American people to have confidence in this investigation,” they concluded.
Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, was as incredulous as anyone over the news.
“How can the Department of Justice say that no charges will be filed when its investigation into the targeting of conservative groups isn’t finished?”
Latest IRS Scandal? Changing the Rules. Jonathan S. Tobin | @tobincommentary 12.02.2013 - 1:05 PM
Earlier this year, the nation was outraged to learn that the Internal Revenue Service was singling out conservative and religious groups for discriminatory treatment when they applied for non-profit status. That scandal—which went to the heart of the Obama administration’s abuse of power and disregard for constitutional principles—briefly held center stage in Washington as agency officials failed to adequately explain how this could have happened and the cover story that the policy was only the fault of a few rogue administrators in Cincinnati fell apart. But, as is par for the course with the 24/7 news cycle, other stories, such as the NSA spying leaks, the government shutdown, and the ObamaCare rollout fiasco soon replaced it. It’s likely that the White House is hoping that the whole affair is now safely shoved down the country’s memory hole.
They may be right about that. Last week, the IRS unveiled an end-run around the problem of illegally targeting conservatives with a rules change. The new policy would reverse a 54-year-old regulation and essentially eliminate an entire class of advocacy groups that just happens to be used by far more right-wing activists than left-wingers. But to ensure that this transparently political maneuver by an agency that is supposed to be above partisanship got as little coverage as possible, the change was announced Tuesday with the rule only being posted on the Federal Register on the Friday after Thanksgiving. The pre-holiday news dump was largely successful as the development was buried over the long weekend. But the proposed change, which would severely limit the ability of advocacy groups to gain the crucial advantage afforded by those with tax-exempt-status, should not go unchallenged. The shift would essentially legalize the attempt by some in the IRS to target activists that came under fire back in the spring. Changing the rules in this manner is merely another effort by liberals to regulate and suppress political speech.
At the height of the scandal in which IRS officials indefensibly singled out groups associated with the Tea Party or other conservative causes and faith groups for delays and denials, there were many liberals who argued that the problem was only that the government had been sloppy about the manner in which some activists were flagged. They claimed the real problem was not the way in which the government discriminated against some of those seeking non-profit status but the entire idea that any of those involved in advocacy on issues should be granted protection from the tax collectors. The goal, they said, should be to prevent groups with political purposes from becoming non-profits.
Critics of the existing rules were right when they noted that the old rules were vague. A 1959 government ruling allowed an organization set up under section 501(c)(4) of the tax code to have the status of social welfare groups “if it is primarily engaged in promoting in some way the common good and general welfare of the people of the community.” That has been interpreted as letting groups spend a substantial portion of their funds on political advocacy, albeit after undergoing a subjective evaluation by the IRS that, as we now know, was tilted heavily against conservatives. Greater clarity was needed, but rather than merely eliminate the biases, what the IRS is proposing is to alter the rules to make it difficult, if not impossible for groups that aim at promoting political change—be it from a right-wing or a left-wing point of view—to become non-profits.
That might seem fair to some, but it will go a long way toward silencing grass roots groups that cannot build upon the advantages built into the system for other players on the political stage such as unions or business associations that will not be affected by the new IRS policy.
As even a liberal outlet like NPR noted, in one of the few stories published or broadcast about the issue in the last week, this will have a disproportionate impact on conservative advocacy which is far more dependent on 501(c) groups than their rivals on the left. But, like the various attempts to promulgate campaign finance “reform,” the real object is suppression of political speech.
Critics of allowing advocacy groups to gain non-profit status speak of their efforts as essentially theft from the public treasury, just as they regard tax cuts which allow citizens to keep more of the money they have earned to be a gift from Uncle Sam. But such arguments look at the problem from the wrong end of the telescope. The real issue here is not whether there is something wrong with more grass roots and other advocacy groups being allowed to fund raise and not be forced to reveal their donors. Rather, it is the liberal panic that ensued after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down efforts by the government to ban certain kinds of political speech under the guise of campaign reform in their 2010 Citizens United decision. That ruling allowed more individuals and groups to make their voices heard and led to an increase in the number of social welfare groups that spoke out on the issues. The IRS scandal was part of a government effort to repress that rising tide of activism. The new rules will therefore complete the work the so-called rogues of Cincinnati started.
The IRS policy would put a crimp into conservative efforts until a new way around the rules is found, as is inevitable with such regulations. But the victim here isn’t conservatism; it’s democracy. Those who delight in making life difficult for Tea Party activists should understand that giving the IRS this kind of power over speech will ultimately hamper liberal grass roots groups as much as those of conservatives. Participation by citizen groups—even those we disagree with—should be protected, not made more onerous. These new rules, which will not go into effect until after the next election, should not be allowed to go into effect. The real and ongoing IRS scandal is the way the agency has been used to regulate political activity. That isn’t the job of the IRS or any branch of government, and American democracy will be more secure once such efforts are outlawed.
Chuck Schumer is a big driver of this. He advocated to the president after the Citizens United decision that the president should use administrative powers to curtail 'small government' advocacy. While 'Tea Party' is the buzzword, all independent groups are targeted by these new rules.
I don't believe that big government republicans aren't silent partners to this effort. They see a large 3rd party movement occurring and they don't like it. RNC Inc. and DNC inc. never did like competition and free speech/democracy don't really feature in their platforms much.
A viable third party will really screw things up. But only for a very short while. In the end things will sort themselves out. The GOP will probably be sacrificed for some sort of Tea Party-Libertarian hybrid.
Lancing a boil is never pretty. But democratic republics are messy by definition.
The work for that to happen will be difficult. I am afraid that big government republicans are going to show just how much the Democratic party has infiltrated by its support for immigration reform... If Boehner gets his way, the republican party is finished...
Ann Coulter did a fair assessment here: http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2014-01-29.html
"The GOP will probably be sacrificed for some sort of Tea Party-Libertarian hybrid."
To save the constitution, the religious right will have to let go of the idea that they can control moral values in others that guide their lives. Obviously they can and should bring that discussion to the table but until we follow the constitution rather than try to make it something it isn't, we can't expect others to do the same. This is the hypocrisy of the right that the left prays on... We must allow people to make mistakes within the confines of the constitution but we must also tell the politically correct police to stick it where the sun don't shine. The freedom of the constitution also allows people to express there opinion.. even if it hurts someones feelings.
Moderate Republicans team up with labor unions to defeat the tea party in 2014 2:58 PM 02/07/2014
Patrick Howley Reporter See All Articles Email Patrick Howley Subscribe to RSS Follow on Twitter Bio
A Republican super PAC committed to defeating the tea party in 2014 congressional primaries is mostly funded by labor unions.
The super PAC Defending Main Street, formed by moderate Republican and former congressman Steve LaTourette, has committed itself to destroying tea party challenges to establishment GOP candidates in the 2014 midterm elections.
“Hopefully we’ll go into eight to 10 races and beat the snot out of them,” LaTourette said. His PAC has already committed itself to defending Republican Idaho Rep. Mike Simpson from tea party opponent Bryan Smith, who is backed by the conservative Club for Growth due to Simpson’s support for the Wall Street bailout. Defending Main Street also aims to defend incumbent House Republicans Aaron Schock and Adam Kinzinger and West Virginia Senate candidate Shelley Moore Capito.
The PAC hopes to raise $8 million this election cycle to wage war with the tea party. So far, the PAC has raised only $845,000, and most of it came from labor unions, according to Federal Election Commission (FEC) receipts.
The PAC picked up only seven donors in late 2013 and five of them were unions or union-affiliated PAC’s.
The Laborers’ Political League Education Fund donated $100,000 to Defending Main Street.
The International Union of Operating Engineers gave $250,000.
The Laborers’ International Union of North America gave $150,000.
Working for Working Americans-Federal gave $250,000.
The Marine Engineers Beneficial Association Political Action Fund chipped in $15,000.
Only two non-union interests made donations: the Chicakasaw Nation gave $50,000 and David Bonderman of Fort Worth, Texas gave $30,000.
That means unions gave $765,000 of the PAC’s $845,000 cash on hand — more than 90 percent.
“I never believed you need to be anti-trade union to be a Republican,” LaTourette told The Daily Caller, noting that he’s built good relationships with labor unions in his 18 years on Capitol Hill. “When we launched, it was natural for me to go to them.”
“Their members don’t go to work when there’s gridlock, and they see center-right Republicans as a good” tool to help alleviate gridlock, LaTourette said, claiming that 40 percent of union members are Republicans.
“They have decided to systemically go against center-right Republicans in primary elections,” LaTourette said of his tea party rivals, saying that tea partiers are happy to call him a “RINO” but that that they go “apopletic” when the “RINO gets a gun” and “fires back.”
“Here’s the deal: we didn’t start this fight,” LaTourette said, “but I’m going to finish it.”
NYTimes Exposes Former Rep Steve LaTourette Effort to Profit from GOP Tea Party Battle
Big business loves big government and the Tea Party’s effort to reduce the size and scope of government threatens the revenue streams of some of the biggest companies in the country.
The possibility of losing access and money is a major reason for the coordinated attacks against the Tea Party by establishment Republicans and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, as well as the new effort created by former establishment Republican Steve LaTourette from Ohio.
LaTourette created an elaborate infrastructure including a nonprofit and lobbying firm to profit from special interests including labor unions and big businesses that want to end the Tea Party’s uprising.
In a previous post, I described the hypocrisy of LaTourette’s advocacy effort.
Of course, the fight for the soul of the Republican Party is a major media story and a recent New York Times article, “Tangled Role in G.O.P. War Over Tea Party,” exposed LaTourette’s network of organizations to defend the status quo.
While LaTourette claims his fight against the Tea Party is philosophical, I believe his motivation is based on generating a big source of income as my quote in the story states:
“This is not about some high-minded political ideas,” said Tom Borelli, a senior fellow at Freedom Works. “This is a sophisticated get-rich-quick scheme.”
My belief about his real motivation to fight the Tea Party was bolstered by a National Journal story, “Guess Who’s Funding the Republican Civil War,” that revealed labor unions were funding LaTourette’s Defending Main Street PAC.
The Republican Main Street Partnership has emerged as an outspoken, deep-pocketed player in pro-business GOP plans to beat back tea-party challengers next year. But the group’s new super PAC has an unexpected source for its seed money: labor unions.
The super PAC, called Defending Main Street, has not yet submitted a major donor disclosure to the Federal Election Commission. But documents filed by other groups show that two labor organizations, the International Union of Operating Engineers and the Laborers’ International Union of North America, directed a combined $400,000 to the Republican group in September and October.
Main Street says it has raised roughly $2 million total between its super PAC and an affiliated nonprofit group so far—and that means labor has supplied at least 20 percent of those funds.
The Tea Party has collected a powerful array of enemies that are extremely worried about losing control of the inside Washington, D.C. power structure. LaTourette is merely a political opportunist looking to profit from keeping big government big.
Tags: Big Government, GOP, labor unions, Steve LaTourette, Tea Party, US Chamber of Commerce
Share10 Tweet21 2 Share66
Posting Policy We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read more.
Chuck Schumer Calls For The IRS To Stop The Tea Party
ReplyDeleteFree Speech: The IRS scandal is not only not over but is getting worse, with a call by New York's senior senator for the already-politicized agency to use its power to tax to destroy the conservative grass-roots movement.
Arguing that the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United decision allowed Tea Party groups to "funnel millions of undisclosed dollars into campaigns with ads that distort the truth and attack government," Charles Schumer wants the IRS and other government agencies to take on the Tea Party through their administrative powers.
"It is clear that we will not pass anything legislatively as long as the House of Representatives is in Republican control, but there are many things that can be done administratively by the IRS and other government agencies," Schumer said in a speech before the leftist think tank Center for American Progress.
Calling for the IRS to use its powers to resume war on the First Amendment and free speech he doesn't like in the hopes of electing more Democrats, Schumer said: "We must redouble those efforts immediately."
Schumer was the author of the 2010 Disclose Act that failed to make it through Congress but would have required the disclosure of corporate donors to tax-exempt organizations, and membership and donor lists of the groups running "issue" ads.
"The bill was designed to embarrass companies," Schumer admitted, and its "deterrent effect should not be underestimated."
Advocating the use of government power to harass and intimidate political opponents is nothing new to Schumer. Along with Democratic Sens. Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, Tom Udall of New Mexico and Al Franken of Minnesota, he sent a similar letter to IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman in February 2012 asking the IRS to investigate 12 conservative groups he accused of violating their tax-exempt status and engaging in coordinated political activity.
This effort to use government power to fundamentally transform our political system more along the lines of the Venezuelan model includes new IRS rules for 501(c)(4) organizations that would redefine "candidate-related political activity" and make virtually everything such tax-exempt political groups do a taxable activity.
Washington, D.C., attorney Cleta Mitchell, who represents a number of the Tea Party groups targeted by the IRS, says that under the new rules candidate-related activities would cover just about everything a 501(c)(4) typically does, including candidate debates, guides for voting, lobbying at the grass roots, issue advocacy as well as any public statements by officers of 501(c)(4)s that reference incumbents and candidates.
Schumer's call for government to punish its political enemies comes at the same time the IRS is conducting a Hollywood witch hunt openly targeting for "special scrutiny" a group known as the Friends of Abe. Named after Abraham Lincoln, it has about 1,500 members involved in various aspects of the film industry who meet to discuss politics and listen to conservative leaders.
ReplyDeleteThe group doesn't engage in overt political activities or endorse candidates. It functions as a sort of a conservative support group for Hollywood conservatives in that liberal bastion and seeks to keep its members' names secret for fear of career consequences.
Jeremy Boreing, executive director of Friends of Abe, insists his organization has "absolutely no political agenda" and exists only to "create fellowship among like-minded individuals." What bothers the IRS is the fact the group, which has applied for tax-exempt status, invites largely conservative speakers.
The ability of people to peacefully assemble to petition their government for redress of grievances is under attack as the IRS and Democratic senators continue to ask, "Are you now, or have you ever been, a conservative?"
Chuck Schumer
ReplyDeleteSchumer was born in Brooklyn, the son of Selma (née Rosen) and Abraham Schumer.[4] His family is Jewish, descended from immigrants from Russia, Poland, and Austria.[5] He attended public schools in Brooklyn, scoring 1600 on the SAT, and graduated as the valedictorian from James Madison High School in 1967.[6] Schumer competed for Madison High on the It's Academic television quiz show.[7]
He attended Harvard College, where he became interested in politics and campaigned for Eugene McCarthy in 1968.[8] After completing his undergraduate degree, he continued to Harvard Law School, earning his Juris Doctor with honors in 1974. Schumer passed the New York State Bar Exam in early 1975, but never practiced law, entering politics instead.[9]
A native of Brooklyn and graduate of Harvard College and its law school, he was a three-term member of the New York State Assembly, serving from 1975 to 1980
In 1980, 16th District Congresswoman Elizabeth Holtzman won the Democratic nomination for the Senate seat of Republican Jacob Javits. Schumer ran for Holtzman's vacated House seat and won.
He was re-elected eight times from the Brooklyn and Queens-based district, which changed numbers twice in his tenure (it was numbered the 16th from 1981 to 1983, the 10th from 1983 to 1993 and the 9th from 1993). In 1982, as a result of redistricting, Schumer faced a potential matchup with his mentor, veteran Brooklyn congressman Steve Solarz.[13] In preparation, Schumer "set about making friends on Wall Street, tapping the city’s top law firms and securities houses for campaign donations. 'I told them I looked like I had a very difficult reapportionment fight. If I were to stand a chance of being re-elected, I needed some help,' he would later tell the Associated Press."[13]
Schumer was elected to the US senate in 1998.
Mr. Schumer is like my representative Christopher Smith a career politician. Mr. Schumer has the Gaul to label Tea Party supporters as the "elite."
ReplyDeleteBoth of these men are jokes. Hermetically sealed husks living on the backs of tax paying citizens.
Chuckie, Chris, grow some balls and take your acts out on the road. You're both exalted DC nobility better suited to a feudal, not a free society.
So I did the research why you dislike your representative. Pretty simple he is for an assault weapons ban. Cool.
DeleteOur elected officials including your president represent:
Delete1. Their own self interests.
2. Their monied interests.
3. Their party.
4. If it doesn't conflict the people that sent them to Washington.
Bye Bye see ya on the other side. Farewell to the underground and good riddance. Now we can govern America again without the likes of you.
ReplyDeleteRick, you and Chuck Schumer deserve one another.
DeletePerhaps with a little luck and if America wakes up we can all say goodbye to Harry the obstructionist Reid.
DeleteGovern or Control... You sound genuinely disturbed by the questioning of the status quo.... and I thought it was progressives who liked change and questioning the established order... guess that only applies if it is your favored change. I have serious differences with some tea party advocates but like them, libertarians are a threat to big government control freaks... They must be abolished! The cannot be allowed to spread their seeds of hatred and disapproval of expensive, worthless and debilitating government policy. Hum, all of this manipulation of IRS rules that are designed to stifle a segment of discourse sounds, in a democracy, reason enough to get rid of it... never mind the stupid, complex, unfair and totally unnecessary bureaucracy created to extract the property of hard working Americans for... less than value for money service.
DeleteFreedom of speech a difficult concept to accept?
DeletePHOENIX (AP) – The Arizona Republican Party formally censured Sen. John McCain on Saturday, citing a voting record they say is insufficiently conservative.
ReplyDeleteThe resolution to censure McCain was approved by a voice-vote during a meeting of state committee members in Tempe, state party spokesman Tim Sifert said. It needed signatures from at least 20 percent of state committee members to reach the floor for debate.
McCain isn't up for re-election until 2016, when will turn 80. He announced in October that he was considering running for a sixth term.
According to the resolution, the 2008 Republican presidential nominee has campaigned as a conservative but has lent his support to issues "associated with liberal Democrats," such as immigration reform and funding the federal health care law.
Several Republican county committees recently censured McCain.
Timothy Schwartz, the Legislative District 30 Republican chairman who helped write the resolution, said the censure showed that McCain was losing support from his own party.
"We would gladly embrace Sen. McCain if he stood behind us and represented us," Schwartz said.
SEALS Forbidden to Wear Navy Jack Because it Resembles Tea Party Flag
ReplyDeletehttp://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/seals-forbidden-to-wear-navy-jack-because-it-resembles-tea-party-flag/
ALL:
ReplyDeleteWARCOM and GROUP TWO/ONE have pushed out the uniform policy for NWU III and any patches worn on the sleeve.
All personnel are only authorized to wear the matching “AOR” American Flag patch on the right shoulder. You are no longer authorized to wear the “Don’t Tread On Me” patch.
Again the only patch authorized for wear is the American flag on the right shoulder. Please pass the word to all
When a friend of mine asked his leadership the same question, he was told, “The Jack is too closely associated with radical groups.” We must assume that this thought policeman embedded in the SEAL community is speaking of the Tea Party, whose flag (which also dates from the American Revolution) depicts a snake with the same defiant slogan as The Navy Jack.
Gerald Molen, the producer of Dinesh D'Souza's documentary film "2016: Obama's America," says he never feared his government before he learned that D'Souza is under federal investigation for election fraud.
ReplyDeleteAccording to an indictment made public Thursday, D'Souza is accused of contributing $20,000 to a political campaign in 2012, even though the legal limit is $5,000. D'Souza allegedly promised to reimburse others if they would contribute to a candidate widely believed to be Wendy Long of New York. Long, a Republican, ran unsuccessfully against Democrat Kirsten Gillibrand in 2012 for New York's U.S. Senate seat.
Some, including Molen, believe the indictment is political payback for D'Souza's film, which was critical of President Barack Obama. Among other things, it raised questions about whether Obama had embraced the anti-colonial philosophy of his father and said his future actions could be predicted based on that philosophy.
Molen, who also produced the Academy-award winning "Schindler's List," said he has not spoken to D'Souza since he learned of the indictment, and wouldn't make comments about the specific case until he's learned all the facts.
Still, he said he would not be surprised if the probe is politically motivated.
Asked by Malzberg if he ever felt threatened or had any feelings they should not have been making the film, Molen answered, "No. This is America. I've never had that feeling," adding, "I've never had the occasion to think that I had to fear my government. I never had the thought that I had reason to think I had to look over my shoulder until now."
"No. This is America. I've never had that feeling," adding, "I've never had the occasion to think that I had to fear my government. I never had the thought that I had reason to think I had to look over my shoulder until now."
DeleteNeither establishment Republicans nor tea party conservatives are monolithic. There are some establishment Republicans who are conservative on policy but strongly believe tea partyers are making a huge and self-destructive tactical error in insisting on a hard-line approach, especially in their seeming willingness to allow the government to shut down.
DeleteMany of them truly believe they are just as conservative on policy as we tea partyers, but think we will never advance conservatism unless we soften our negotiating posture toward Democrats while they control the presidency and the Senate, because advancing conservatism is all about winning national elections.
But there are also many among the establishment wing who are by no stretch as conservative on policy as tea partyers. They have made their peace with a large, intrusive federal government and wouldn't roll back much of the New Deal or Great Society even if they had control of all three branches of government.
Many of them favor an "energetic" federal government that implements innovative, proactive solutions to problems, rather than rolling back the government where we can and letting freedom ring and the market work its magic.
They are comfortable with higher levels of federal taxing and spending and with solutions emanating from Washington — such as in education, healthcare, and the environment — instead of decentralizing government control. So it is oversimplified and misleading to argue that the tea party and establishment Republicans differ only in tactics but not in policy.
The tea party wing isn't monolithic, either, in that it contains both social conservatives and social liberals, but it is unified in its opposition to a federal Leviathan that overtaxes, overspends, and overregulates.
We tea partyers are not the self-destructive purists that many establishment types portray us as being. We agree that national elections are critically important, but we don't agree that the best way to win elections is to avoid government shutdowns at all costs.
We believe that by standing firm on principle and articulating our positions clearly and unapologetically like Sen. Ted Cruz did, we will have a better chance of winning elections in the end. We reject the Democratic narrative that we will be blamed for every government shutdown — especially one caused by Obama's insistence on imposing Obamacare against the will of a strong majority of Americans.
http://www.newsmax.com/Limbaugh/GOP-tea-party-Obamacare/2013/12/17/id/542294
You have fun talking to yourself?
ReplyDeleteRick I know you're a great believer in what the media and government spoon feed you. There is a real life out there Rick. Open up and see it. Totalitarianism will not reign.
DeleteYes, a few generations of takers have become entrenched in our society. So easy it is to toe the progressive/liberal/socialist/communist line promoting a never ending multiplication of our children's and granchildren's debt. We will all be dead Rick, our decendents will be forced to fight off financial slavery.
So yes, these things need to be said, even if you alone are the singular audience.
Ha ha ha real life. I forgot more about REAL life then you'll ever know. I live it every day my friend. It is you that stands in the bubble.
DeleteProgressive logic 101:
DeleteOnly we progressive/liberal/socialist/communists have real life experience that counts
Cuomo: Pro-life people have “no place in the state of New York
ReplyDelete"findings conclude that an overwhelming majority of New Yorkers support sensible restrictions on abortions, with eighty percent (80%) opposing unlimited abortion through the ninth month of pregnancy and seventy-five percent (75%) opposing changes in current law so that someone other than a doctor can perform an abortion"
First IRS, now FBI shafts tea party
ReplyDelete'What kind of investigation is this?'
http://www.wnd.com/2014/01/first-irs-now-fbi-shafts-tea-party
WASHINGTON — “It appears that the FBI is in the pocket of the Department of Justice and the White House.”
That’s how attorney Cleta Mitchell described to WND the news that the FBI doesn’t plan to file criminal charges against anyone at the IRS for targeting conservative groups.
Mitchell has represented about a dozen conservative groups that were subjected to dubious, invasive and extra scrutiny by the IRS while applying for tax-exempt status.
She expressed a sarcastic skepticism that the Justice Department would ever fully investigate the IRS.
“To quote Faye Dunaway in the last scene in ‘Chinatown,’ when she yells at Jack Nicholson ‘… he OWNS the police.’”
“Therein lies the problem,” concluded the high-powered Washington attorney.
Tea-party advocates are upset the FBI does not seem interested in getting the story from the victims, only the purported victimizers.
“I can confirm that the FBI has not contacted me, any of my clients, or any other organizations who were victimized by the IRS,” Mitchell told WND.
“Some investigation,” she wryly added.
That was the identical experience of perhaps the most powerful person in the conservative grassroots movement, Jenny Beth Martin, president and co-founder of Tea Party Patriots, an umbrella organization supporting thousands of local organizations and millions of members.
“It’s amazing that this is the result of the supposed investigation,” she told WND. “The FBI never once contacted us. They never contacted any of our attorneys.”
“Tea Party Patriots and I are in touch with locals leaders around the country every single day – none of those people were contacted by the FBI,” said an exasperated and incredulous Martin.
Despite evidence from the Treasury Department that the IRS targeted conservative groups for extra scrutiny, law-enforcement officials leaked word to the Wall Street Journal that investigators didn’t find the kind of political bias or “enemy hunting” that would amount to a violation of criminal law.
ReplyDelete“What kind of investigation is this – where you don’t even talk to and interview the people who were victimized in the crime?” wondered Martin.
WND asked her, as far as you can tell, is there actually an investigation?
“I never saw an investigation,” she said. “If there was, they were not talking to the people who were most affected. We were never contacted, and I’ve heard of no one who has been contacted.”
That echoed what Mitchell told the Wall Street Journal.
“As far as I can tell, nobody has actually done an investigation. This has been a big, bureaucratic, former-Soviet-Union-type investigation, which means that there was no investigation,” she said. “This is a deplorable abuse of the public trust, but I am not surprised.”
Sources told the paper the FBI discovered a mismanaged bureaucracy at the IRS merely bungled enforcement rules about tax-exemption applications it didn’t understand.
However, the evidence points to a much greater targeting of conservative groups than progressive organizations.
The audit of the targeting practice by Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) found only “30 percent of the organizations we identified with the words ‘progress’ or ‘progressive’ in their names were processed as potential political cases.”
“In comparison, our audit found that 100 percent of the tax-exempt applications with tea party, patriots, or 9/12 in their names were processed as potential political cases during the time frame of our audit.”
The IRS even admitted that conservative groups applying for tax-exempt status were inappropriately given close scrutiny between May 2010 and May 2012, which delayed approvals for months, and sometimes years.
“The evidence shows us that conservative groups were not only flagged, but targeted and abused by the IRS,” said Sarah Swinehart, spokeswoman for the House Ways and Means Committee.
The American Center for Law and Justice, or ACLJ, which represents 41 organizations in a federal lawsuit against the IRS, said the investigation is nothing more than a “sham” designed to protect those responsible.
ReplyDelete“From Day 1, it was apparent the Obama administration was never really interested in getting to the truth. This latest revelation directly conflicts with the facts and evidence in our case – that our clients were deliberately singled out and targeted because of their conservative political beliefs.” said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the ACLJ.
After seven months, the FBI actually did contact the ACLJ late in December requesting interviews with several of their clients. But just days ago, the ACLJ said it would re-evaluate that request after it was revealed that a top Obama supporter in the Department of Justice was named to head-up the criminal investigation.
“The appointment of Barbara Bosserman – a major political donor – to oversee the criminal probe is a significant conflict of interest,” said Sekulow. “What’s amazing is that her short tenure at the helm – just a matter of days – apparently was long enough to conclude no criminal charges will be filed against those responsible for the targeting scheme.”
House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif., and Subcommittee Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, released a statement that was also critical of the appointment of Bosserman, because “congressional investigators independently discovered that a high-dollar contributor to the Obama administration failed to recuse herself.”
“These revelations further undermine the credibility of the Attorney General Holder and the Justice Department under his leadership. Given the circumstances, there is little reason for the American people to have confidence in this investigation,” they concluded.
Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, was as incredulous as anyone over the news.
“How can the Department of Justice say that no charges will be filed when its investigation into the targeting of conservative groups isn’t finished?”
Latest IRS Scandal? Changing the Rules.
ReplyDeleteJonathan S. Tobin | @tobincommentary
12.02.2013 - 1:05 PM
Earlier this year, the nation was outraged to learn that the Internal Revenue Service was singling out conservative and religious groups for discriminatory treatment when they applied for non-profit status. That scandal—which went to the heart of the Obama administration’s abuse of power and disregard for constitutional principles—briefly held center stage in Washington as agency officials failed to adequately explain how this could have happened and the cover story that the policy was only the fault of a few rogue administrators in Cincinnati fell apart. But, as is par for the course with the 24/7 news cycle, other stories, such as the NSA spying leaks, the government shutdown, and the ObamaCare rollout fiasco soon replaced it. It’s likely that the White House is hoping that the whole affair is now safely shoved down the country’s memory hole.
They may be right about that. Last week, the IRS unveiled an end-run around the problem of illegally targeting conservatives with a rules change. The new policy would reverse a 54-year-old regulation and essentially eliminate an entire class of advocacy groups that just happens to be used by far more right-wing activists than left-wingers. But to ensure that this transparently political maneuver by an agency that is supposed to be above partisanship got as little coverage as possible, the change was announced Tuesday with the rule only being posted on the Federal Register on the Friday after Thanksgiving. The pre-holiday news dump was largely successful as the development was buried over the long weekend. But the proposed change, which would severely limit the ability of advocacy groups to gain the crucial advantage afforded by those with tax-exempt-status, should not go unchallenged. The shift would essentially legalize the attempt by some in the IRS to target activists that came under fire back in the spring. Changing the rules in this manner is merely another effort by liberals to regulate and suppress political speech.
At the height of the scandal in which IRS officials indefensibly singled out groups associated with the Tea Party or other conservative causes and faith groups for delays and denials, there were many liberals who argued that the problem was only that the government had been sloppy about the manner in which some activists were flagged. They claimed the real problem was not the way in which the government discriminated against some of those seeking non-profit status but the entire idea that any of those involved in advocacy on issues should be granted protection from the tax collectors. The goal, they said, should be to prevent groups with political purposes from becoming non-profits.
Critics of the existing rules were right when they noted that the old rules were vague. A 1959 government ruling allowed an organization set up under section 501(c)(4) of the tax code to have the status of social welfare groups “if it is primarily engaged in promoting in some way the common good and general welfare of the people of the community.” That has been interpreted as letting groups spend a substantial portion of their funds on political advocacy, albeit after undergoing a subjective evaluation by the IRS that, as we now know, was tilted heavily against conservatives. Greater clarity was needed, but rather than merely eliminate the biases, what the IRS is proposing is to alter the rules to make it difficult, if not impossible for groups that aim at promoting political change—be it from a right-wing or a left-wing point of view—to become non-profits.
ReplyDeleteThat might seem fair to some, but it will go a long way toward silencing grass roots groups that cannot build upon the advantages built into the system for other players on the political stage such as unions or business associations that will not be affected by the new IRS policy.
As even a liberal outlet like NPR noted, in one of the few stories published or broadcast about the issue in the last week, this will have a disproportionate impact on conservative advocacy which is far more dependent on 501(c) groups than their rivals on the left. But, like the various attempts to promulgate campaign finance “reform,” the real object is suppression of political speech.
Critics of allowing advocacy groups to gain non-profit status speak of their efforts as essentially theft from the public treasury, just as they regard tax cuts which allow citizens to keep more of the money they have earned to be a gift from Uncle Sam. But such arguments look at the problem from the wrong end of the telescope. The real issue here is not whether there is something wrong with more grass roots and other advocacy groups being allowed to fund raise and not be forced to reveal their donors. Rather, it is the liberal panic that ensued after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down efforts by the government to ban certain kinds of political speech under the guise of campaign reform in their 2010 Citizens United decision. That ruling allowed more individuals and groups to make their voices heard and led to an increase in the number of social welfare groups that spoke out on the issues. The IRS scandal was part of a government effort to repress that rising tide of activism. The new rules will therefore complete the work the so-called rogues of Cincinnati started.
The IRS policy would put a crimp into conservative efforts until a new way around the rules is found, as is inevitable with such regulations. But the victim here isn’t conservatism; it’s democracy. Those who delight in making life difficult for Tea Party activists should understand that giving the IRS this kind of power over speech will ultimately hamper liberal grass roots groups as much as those of conservatives. Participation by citizen groups—even those we disagree with—should be protected, not made more onerous. These new rules, which will not go into effect until after the next election, should not be allowed to go into effect. The real and ongoing IRS scandal is the way the agency has been used to regulate political activity. That isn’t the job of the IRS or any branch of government, and American democracy will be more secure once such efforts are outlawed.
Chuck Schumer is a big driver of this. He advocated to the president after the Citizens United decision that the president should use administrative powers to curtail 'small government' advocacy. While 'Tea Party' is the buzzword, all independent groups are targeted by these new rules.
DeleteI don't believe that big government republicans aren't silent partners to this effort. They see a large 3rd party movement occurring and they don't like it. RNC Inc. and DNC inc. never did like competition and free speech/democracy don't really feature in their platforms much.
A viable third party will really screw things up. But only for a very short while. In the end things will sort themselves out. The GOP will probably be sacrificed for some sort of Tea Party-Libertarian hybrid.
DeleteLancing a boil is never pretty. But democratic republics are messy by definition.
1773-2009
The work for that to happen will be difficult. I am afraid that big government republicans are going to show just how much the Democratic party has infiltrated by its support for immigration reform... If Boehner gets his way, the republican party is finished...
DeleteAnn Coulter did a fair assessment here:
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2014-01-29.html
"The GOP will probably be sacrificed for some sort of Tea Party-Libertarian hybrid."
To save the constitution, the religious right will have to let go of the idea that they can control moral values in others that guide their lives. Obviously they can and should bring that discussion to the table but until we follow the constitution rather than try to make it something it isn't, we can't expect others to do the same. This is the hypocrisy of the right that the left prays on... We must allow people to make mistakes within the confines of the constitution but we must also tell the politically correct police to stick it where the sun don't shine. The freedom of the constitution also allows people to express there opinion.. even if it hurts someones feelings.
Moderate Republicans team up with labor unions to defeat the tea party in 2014
ReplyDelete2:58 PM 02/07/2014
Patrick Howley
Reporter
See All Articles
Email Patrick Howley
Subscribe to RSS
Follow on Twitter
Bio
A Republican super PAC committed to defeating the tea party in 2014 congressional primaries is mostly funded by labor unions.
The super PAC Defending Main Street, formed by moderate Republican and former congressman Steve LaTourette, has committed itself to destroying tea party challenges to establishment GOP candidates in the 2014 midterm elections.
“Hopefully we’ll go into eight to 10 races and beat the snot out of them,” LaTourette said. His PAC has already committed itself to defending Republican Idaho Rep. Mike Simpson from tea party opponent Bryan Smith, who is backed by the conservative Club for Growth due to Simpson’s support for the Wall Street bailout. Defending Main Street also aims to defend incumbent House Republicans Aaron Schock and Adam Kinzinger and West Virginia Senate candidate Shelley Moore Capito.
The PAC hopes to raise $8 million this election cycle to wage war with the tea party. So far, the PAC has raised only $845,000, and most of it came from labor unions, according to Federal Election Commission (FEC) receipts.
The PAC picked up only seven donors in late 2013 and five of them were unions or union-affiliated PAC’s.
The Laborers’ Political League Education Fund donated $100,000 to Defending Main Street.
The International Union of Operating Engineers gave $250,000.
The Laborers’ International Union of North America gave $150,000.
Working for Working Americans-Federal gave $250,000.
The Marine Engineers Beneficial Association Political Action Fund chipped in $15,000.
Only two non-union interests made donations: the Chicakasaw Nation gave $50,000 and David Bonderman of Fort Worth, Texas gave $30,000.
That means unions gave $765,000 of the PAC’s $845,000 cash on hand — more than 90 percent.
“I never believed you need to be anti-trade union to be a Republican,” LaTourette told The Daily Caller, noting that he’s built good relationships with labor unions in his 18 years on Capitol Hill. “When we launched, it was natural for me to go to them.”
“Their members don’t go to work when there’s gridlock, and they see center-right Republicans as a good” tool to help alleviate gridlock, LaTourette said, claiming that 40 percent of union members are Republicans.
“They have decided to systemically go against center-right Republicans in primary elections,” LaTourette said of his tea party rivals, saying that tea partiers are happy to call him a “RINO” but that that they go “apopletic” when the “RINO gets a gun” and “fires back.”
“Here’s the deal: we didn’t start this fight,” LaTourette said, “but I’m going to finish it.”
NYTimes Exposes Former Rep Steve LaTourette Effort to Profit from GOP Tea Party Battle
ReplyDeleteBig business loves big government and the Tea Party’s effort to reduce the size and scope of government threatens the revenue streams of some of the biggest companies in the country.
The possibility of losing access and money is a major reason for the coordinated attacks against the Tea Party by establishment Republicans and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, as well as the new effort created by former establishment Republican Steve LaTourette from Ohio.
LaTourette created an elaborate infrastructure including a nonprofit and lobbying firm to profit from special interests including labor unions and big businesses that want to end the Tea Party’s uprising.
In a previous post, I described the hypocrisy of LaTourette’s advocacy effort.
Of course, the fight for the soul of the Republican Party is a major media story and a recent New York Times article, “Tangled Role in G.O.P. War Over Tea Party,” exposed LaTourette’s network of organizations to defend the status quo.
While LaTourette claims his fight against the Tea Party is philosophical, I believe his motivation is based on generating a big source of income as my quote in the story states:
“This is not about some high-minded political ideas,” said Tom Borelli, a senior fellow at Freedom Works. “This is a sophisticated get-rich-quick scheme.”
My belief about his real motivation to fight the Tea Party was bolstered by a National Journal story, “Guess Who’s Funding the Republican Civil War,” that revealed labor unions were funding LaTourette’s Defending Main Street PAC.
The Republican Main Street Partnership has emerged as an outspoken, deep-pocketed player in pro-business GOP plans to beat back tea-party challengers next year. But the group’s new super PAC has an unexpected source for its seed money: labor unions.
The super PAC, called Defending Main Street, has not yet submitted a major donor disclosure to the Federal Election Commission. But documents filed by other groups show that two labor organizations, the International Union of Operating Engineers and the Laborers’ International Union of North America, directed a combined $400,000 to the Republican group in September and October.
Main Street says it has raised roughly $2 million total between its super PAC and an affiliated nonprofit group so far—and that means labor has supplied at least 20 percent of those funds.
The Tea Party has collected a powerful array of enemies that are extremely worried about losing control of the inside Washington, D.C. power structure. LaTourette is merely a political opportunist looking to profit from keeping big government big.
Tags: Big Government, GOP, labor unions, Steve LaTourette, Tea Party, US Chamber of Commerce
Share10 Tweet21
2 Share66
Posting Policy
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read more.