The DLC lost its tax exempt status.

[Robbien]

In a previously unreported action, the Internal Revenue Service has revoked the DLC’s tax exemption on the grounds that it primarily benefited a private group—Democrats, and particularly “New Democrats” running for or holding office—rather than the community at large.

The DLC has sued in federal court to overturn the decision

Their reasoning:

The DLC responds that its exclusive purpose is to develop and promote its “Third Way” agenda and that some causes it has lobbied for—e.g., welfare reform, fast-track approval of free-trade agreements—got more Republican than Democratic votes in Congress.

So the DLC is saying in court that they are more like Republicans than Democrats.

The numerous discussions here at DU about how the DLC is not a friend of Democrats/liberals/progressives can now be put to bed. The DLC itself says it favors the GOP.


Cited info in this post taken from Atrios' site

[mmonk]

1. Poor babies. At least they're getting more honest.

[Benhurst]

2. Recommended #3

[bryant69]

3. In all honesty is this a good trend?

The power to tax is the power to destroy - I loathe the DLC, but is this really something we want to get behind? Because who's next?

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[mmonk]

7. Maybe. I'm for taxing some of the rightwing churches

that are part of the political process on the behalf of the republican party. Same should apply to the DLC.

[bryant69]

10. The question is that once you create those mechanisms

to hurt organizations you don't like, don't you worry that the same mechanisms can be used to hurt organizations you do like?

Bryant

[Robbien]

23. Private groups should not be tax exempt

Whether they are from the left or right. The tax exemption is given to organizations which benefit the community at large, not private interests.

[FogerRox]

36. not in the current enviroment

[Robbien]

13. The IRS is saying the DLC is a private group

and does not benefit the community at large. Why should private groups not have to pay taxes?

Robert Perry's new Swiftboat offshoot Economic Freedom Fund is also a 501(c)(4) and is tax exempt.

If this DLC case is the start of a trend, then I hope it continues.

[LaPera]

14. Not when the fascist are in power using the IRS for their own witch hunts

against one party (the democrats)...as they are doing here and against liberal churches, and anything else democrat....the fascist despise us liberals as we do them...

I too, am no fan of the DLC ---However, its becoming very obvious when the fascist republicans can't get rid of democrats & their organizations in any other way, they sic the IRS on the Dems to try and bankrupt them...

[EFerrari]

22. You are so right, LaPera.

Using the IRS against political enemies is an old Republican fall back position. They usually can only beat us when they cheat. So, they've gotten really good at cheating.

Bunch of criminals.

[OzarkDem]

31. No, it isn't

Policies aside, this seems very unfair.

[Prophet 451]

4. Is the RNC tax-exempt?

My knowledge is a little hazy here but isn't the relationship between the DLC and Democratic party roughly the same as that between the RNC and Republican party?

'Cos if it is, doesn't this strike anyone as using teh IRS as a political weapon?

[personman]

12. You're thinking of the DNC not the DLC.

DNC = Democratic National Committee
DLC = Democratic Leadership Council

It happens. Too many damn acronyms.

[Prophet 451]

21. Damn, my bad. Cheers mate. n/t

[MsUnderstood]

5. Uh arent you guys even a little afraid

I mean all the "right wing" organizations that keep the tax exempt status and the DLC looses theirs when they work kinda sorta for the republicans?

But go ahead and mock them and laugh. . .and when an even more democratic organization looses the status you can scratch your heads and say "Whats going on here?!?"

[Why Syzygy]

11. so you're saying

the DLC is the first right-wing org to be challenged? Isn't that a good thing? Remember Lieberman? He was DLC sweetheart. Where is he now?

[KingFlorez]

16. The point is

The Republicans who control the government don't view them as right-wing at all. This could be the start of trouble for organizations that are more helpful than the DLC.

[Why Syzygy]

26. There is a countersuit

so at least we still have that. I think many religious organization should lose their tax exempt because the are blatantly in the political arena. It needs to start somewhere.

[mmonk]

15. Once they start down this road, it can work both ways.

An IRS with a double standard will get in trouble eventually and have to apply it to the rightwing.

[Robbien]

19. We need to write letters to the IRS questioning the Swiftboater offshoot

Robert Perry's Economic Freedom Fund is also a tax exempt organization. But like the DLC it is a private fund which only favors the GOP.

[KingFlorez]

6. Let's beware

To Republicans, they see the DLC and anything else related to Democrats as the same and dislike them. It starts with this, what else is next? More harsh restrictions on other organizations?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

8. "New Democrats" = "Old Country Club Republicans"

Same rotten fish, same rotten smell.

[NorthernSpy]

46. they strike me more as nouveaux riches, arrivistes

:shrug:

[Why Syzygy]

9. The DLC has actually used its funds

to lobby against other DEMOCRATS. Nothing new here.

[w4rma]

17. I didn't know that they were tax exempt in the first place.

And I don't think that they should remain tax exempt, either.

[Generic Other]

18. DLC "got more Republican than Democratic votes"

Well, there it is. Proof of the DLCs real base.

[earth mom]

20. Aha! So the truth is now out about the DEMS IN NAME ONLY DLC!

We told you so! :mad:

[kerry-is-my-prez]

24. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend"

[Jack Rabbit]

25. Recommeded (that's a baker's dozen)

Is this fair or not?

I once made a quip that the DLC is made up of strange people; first they complain about Greens who don't see the difference between a Democrat and a Republican and then they complain about any Democrat who tries not to sound too much like a Republican.

OK, I agree that they exist to assist Democrats, especially a specific kind of Democrat. Are they the only such organization with like that with a tax expmption? I once heard a Republican activist, I believe it was Steven Moore of the Club for Growth, but I'm not certain, saying the goal of organization is "To elect more Republicans and better Republicans," by which he meant those who favored Social Security privatization. Is this group tax exempt? (I don't know.) By the same standard, if it is tax exempt, then should its tax exemption be revoked? (I would think so.) Will the Bushies running the IRS go after any such organization that is tax exempt? (we shouldn't need to ask, but when it comes to the Bushies, we need to ask.)

While I wish the DLC would just fade away, I don't really know what this is about and I'm a little concerned about it.

[Robbien]

27. The Club for Growth is a 527, the DLC is a 501(c)(4)

Big difference.

A 527 is a loophole in the McCain-Feingold campaign reform law that was supposed to reduce the influence of "soft money" in elections. It's free to do anything but advocate for a specific candidate. The 527 doesn't support candidates, it supports issues.

[Jack Rabbit]

28. Thank you

I suppose that whoever I was listening to on that news program, it wasn't Moore. This fellow's group was involved in a Maryland GOP Congessional primary trying to defeat an incumbant Republican who wasn't conservative enough for them.

[Liberal Dose]

29. The GOP needs the DLC to keep trying to brainwash us into thinking that

we have to be more like the Repukes in order to win. Great strategy so far. :argh:

[Robbien]

30. Yes, the push to remove the exempt status couldn't have come from the GOP

The GOP needs the DLC to help them pass RW legislation.

[bonito]

32. So shouldn't the GOP loose theres also after their takeover

By the neocons?

[ToeBot]

33. They function as a Political Action Committee, there is no reason they...

should be treated differently than others PAC's. Besides, I's like to see a listing of their donors. It should make for some interesting reading.

[elehhhhna]

34. HARDIE HAR HAR HAR! Good!

[Robbien]

35. The best thing about this is the DLC will have to disclose its funding

Under its tax exempt status the DLC never had to publically disclose where it got its money. If this decision sticks, all the funding sources will have to become public. Watch the RW rats scatter.

:popcorn:

[readmoreoften]

50. Then I really REALLY hope it loses its status!

It will be interesting to see Karl Rove on the payroll!

[Me.]

37. Maybe This Explains Why From Met With Bloomberg

to urge him to run as an indie candid tate for pres.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2829934

These DLCers, including Clinton have been talking about a 3rd way for eons. Now to me this party they want of so called "centrists" would continue to be the big business party that currently goes under the name DLC. So, they'd start the 3rd party and then we'd have republicans, and republican lites and democrats. This explains why they have been decimating the dem party and so furious at the grassroots. Did From ignore the usual warnings the IRS sends, did he do it deliberately as a way of forcing a new start? Then you have those two guys (Dowd, the republican and another guy who used to be in the Clinton WH) who were on Russert's other show this weekend, talking about their book Applebee's America and how America is ripe for a 3rd party. But who, asked Russert, could they possibly get to run as a third party candidate for Prez. The answer from both men, was Bloomberg, the republican who is going to hold fundraisers for Lieberman. This whole thing has the feel of a set-up.

*shadow government*

[KamaAina]

43. Bloomberg for President?!

Ye gods! He's like a scaled-down version of Ross Perot, although the ears aren't sticking out quite as far.

[CarlVK]

38. DLC = GOP. We were hip to that some years ago.

[katinmn]

39. Are we free to bash the DLC now?

Cripes, this is not news.

[scarletwoman]

40. This makes me very happy. The DLC is a cancer in the Democratic party.

They are corporatists, plain and simple. From the beginning they have been a Trojan Horse inserted into the Democratic Party to destroy its FDR/New Deal roots from within.

The further they can be sent into the Outer Darkness, the better for all of us.

sw

[The Backlash Cometh]

41. What about the right-wing think tanks?

Like the Heritage one, for example. Do they have tax-exemption? And if so, why?

[Bjorn Against]

42. How were they tax exempt to begin with?

My understanding was that partisan groups could not claim tax exempt status, and the DLC has claimed to be working to get "Democrats" elected in the past.

I know when I worked with a non-profit registering voters we were strictly prohibited from encouraging anyone to vote for any particular party or candidate.

[Canuckistanian]

44. "Third Way", my ass

It's more like a "first way in sheep's clothing".

Still, this is sort of good news in that it will force the DLC to disclose their donors.

I'm all for "sunshine policies".

[NorthernSpy]

48. Oooh, donor disclosure!

Now THAT's something to look forward to...


:)

[NorthernSpy]

45. color me thrilled!

Take that, disciples of the Turd Way! You have so earned it.

:party:

[Swamp Rat]

47. yaay!!

[oc2002]

49. Seems like the FASCISTS are going all out to destroy anything DEMOCRATIC.

Even though I despise the DLC as nothing more than the corporate whoring of the democratic party. The IRS seems bent on destroying Dems by warped interpretetations of the tax codes and laws. Oh, is the media even covering this? Why are they not going after the National Rifle Association, that donates 8 to 1 to the Repugs? Is that not partasian? What about all the other non-profits that favor conservative causes too?

[OnceUponTimeOnTheNet]

51. k&r nt

[redqueen]

52. Wow... talk about good news...

I'd like to see the "conservative" 501c3's get hit with this as well, if there are any.