Area conservative group caught in IRS dragnet, member says

To Continue Reading, Please Log In


Forgot your password?

7-day subscribers of The Daily Sentinel have unlimited access to all digital content with their log-in. Guests must register for limited access -- 12 articles a month.

Already a 7-day subscriber? Start here to activate your online access.
Don't have a username and password? Register now

COMMENTS

Commenting is not available in this channel entry.

So let me get this straight, WSCA changed their name because of issues with the IRS? It had nothing to do with the fact that somebody else owned their name?

And they were collecting tax deductible donations without having IRS approval?

It seems to me that Kevin McCarney is clutching at straws to defend his own incompetence.

Kudos to the Daily Sentinel for Thursday’s coverage of the continuing IRS “scandal”:  Gary Harmon’s “Area group caught in IRS dragnet, member says”; Ruth Marcus’s “IRS complacency on tax-exempt rules overshadowed by political scandal”, and the AP’s “GOP, Dems push Holder over subpoenas to the AP”.

As local Tea Party member (and former Vice-Chairman of the Mesa County Republican Party) Kevin McCarney impliedly admitted, the Western Slope Conservative Alliance (“WSCA”) has always been an overtly political organization.  Moreover, it reportedly claimed to have non-existent tax-exempt status when soliciting funds at its functions.

As Marcus explained, federal law mandates that only entities “exclusively” engaged in promoting “social welfare” are entitled to tax-exempt status.  Since 1959, when the IRS issued regulations which redefined “exclusively” to mean “primarily”, tax-exempt groups have been “allowed to engage in partisan activity as long as it constitutes less than half their operations”. 

Thus, the real question remains:  what “social welfare” activities did the WSCA perform which ever entitled it to tax-exempt status?  Apparently, the WSCA believes that its very existence promotes “social welfare” – thereby depriving the term of any real meaning.

Because the Tea Party’s dominant theme was to bash government and complain about high taxes (even though Americans are among the least taxed industrial nations, with the lowest overall tax rate since World War II), it is perhaps understandable that some IRS workers in Cincinnati took umbrage (which does not excuse their illegal conduct, if any).

Ironically, the FBI is investigating possible violations of the Hatch Act – which prohibits partisan political activity by federal employees – in an area of the Tax Code that was to be free of partisan politics ab initio.

Therefore, as Senator Bennet’s spokesman aptly noted, the ultimate outcome of all the investigations should insure that “political organizations do not masquerade as social welfare organizations and take advantage of the tax-exempt status that comes with it”.

Thank you, Mr. Hugenberg, you beat me to the “magic words.”  I’m somewhat surprised (well, maybe not THAT surprised) that the reporter didn’t ask Mr. McCarney specifically what “Social Welfare” activities the WSCA has engaged in.

I would challenge Mr. Huegenberg and Mr. D’Andrea to tell me when they have been to a WSCA or Freedom! Colorado Meeting. Then I would ask them to define Social Welfare.

The WSCA and Freedom! Colorado has conducted numerous informative meetings on a variety of topics like Immigration, Energy, Violence, Gun Issues, Global Warming and many others.

We have also hosted innumerable candidate forums and topic forums where the public could discuss the importance of the issues facing the community. These forums included the 2011 School Tax Issues, the 2011 Medical Marijuana debate, 2013 City Council and Tabor issues. In all of these forums all candidates are invited to attend. It is their choice to come or not.

All of these events hosted with the goal of providing the Public a full education on the issues.

That probably does not fit the definition of Social Welfare to the Left, but nothing is more important to the community than these issues and the effects of blind belief in them.

Kevin:

Having debated you on KNOZ last October (while the bogus application for tax-exempt status was pending, and when you were a Vice-Chair of the Mesa County Republican Party regurgitating since-discredited “talking points”) and followed your demogogic pronouncements in the Daily Sentinel, I doubt that I have any legitimate need to attend your meetings in order to appreciate the kind of pandering drivel you routinely spout.

For example, on April 13, 2013, you draped yourself in an American flag costume and posed a false – and fundamentally unpatriotic—choice between “freedom and slavery”, irresponsibly over-simplifying the complex problems our Country faces and the multi-faceted public policy options which fall in-between, and which real patriots (including President Obama and Governor Hickenlooper) must responsibly confront.  As Samuel Johnson stated on April 7, 1775, “Patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels” – and you seem determined to prove yourself to be one.

However, you raise a legitimate point as to the definition of “social welfare”.  This is the very issue that IRS employees were struggling with in Cincinnati – and which apparently prompted them to seek more information from many applicants in order to assess the ratio of their ostensibly “social welfare” activities versus their purely political activities.

Thus, revealingly, all the topics you listed as subjects for your “informative meetings” are essentially political.  Club 20 – a similarly “conservative” but deservedly more reputable local organization than either the “Western Colorado Conservative Alliance” (“WSCA”) or “Freedom! Colorado”—holds similar meetings addressing similar topics, but does not fraudulently purport to be eligible for tax-exempt status.  Rather, it created the Club 20 Education and Research Foundation – which is.

Arguably, in the broadest and therefore least meaningful sense, your groups’ forums may indeed promote “social welfare” – as would helping the homeless, supporting battered women’s shelters, and feeding the hungry (“non-political”, nonpartisan endeavors more recognizable as promoting “social welfare”).  The Republican Party, Democratic Party, Libertarian Party, Green Party, and American Constitution Party hold similar functions – but (to my knowledge) have not sought tax-exempt status.  By definition, in context, “party” necessarily implies “partisan”.  What makes the “Tea Party” any different?

On June 28, 2010, the WSCA effectively endorsed Ray Scott for election to HD 54.  Was that direct involvement in partisan politics – or merely benign “social welfare”?

In my opinion, the last thing your groups provide is “full education” on any issue – but rather epitomize “the effects of blind belief” in a rigid ideology based on fear and hatred.

Bill

I’m glad you’re in this discussion, Mr. McCarney.  Mr. Hugenberg and myself are not the ones whining about the IRS. Nor are we the ones applying for tax-exempt (and disclosure-exempt) status.  You are.  So help us out here—who have you had at your so-called “social welfare” events?  What points of view do they espouse?  Disclose—where does your money come from and how is it spent?  And if you refuse to disclose, what are you afraid of?

I would encourage you both to investigate the stipulations on the 501 C 4 status before you continue to comment. Again in your ignorance, since neither of you have ever attended a WSCA or Freedom! Colorado event, you can not judge what our groups did and what kind of information we provided.

Mr. Hugenberg is the perfect example of the left, making gratuitous ad hominum attacks on a personal level. The key to his second post is his first comment. He has never bothered to attend an event yet still feels he can judge the content of our programs.

He attempts to define what is social welfare by his narrow terms. I submit to you that immigration issues cost this state $1.5 billion per year. It would certainly be in the interest of the community welfare to solve this problem, as that money could be better spent elsewhere.

I would sumbit to you that the misguided policies of this current State Administration is costing the State of Colorado jobs and millions of dollars in revenue. I think it is in the welfare of the community that we ask why those jobs are leaving and are the show case bills really going to do anything to solve the actual problem.

The problem is that while Conservative like myself will have the courage to go on blatantly biased programs like those that used to be on KNOZ, people like Bill Hugenberg would never deign to attend an event to discuss the issues like ones that the WSCA or Freedom! Colorado regularly put on.

I would wager that Mr. Hugenberg was up in arms when Nixon used the IRS to attack his enemies. Now that it is the Left leading the charge this illegal behavior is okay. I would also wager that the next post from you or him would say that there is no proof the Democrats are involved in this even though 7 Democrat Senators encouraged the IRS to just what they have done, go after the Conservative Groups in this Country.

You two should be proud of your stand for censorship of any opinion differing from your own.



TOP JOBS
Search More Jobs





THE DAILY SENTINEL
734 S. Seventh St.
Grand Junction, CO 81501
970-242-5050
Editions
Subscribe to print edition
E-edition
Advertisers
Sign in to your account
Information

© 2014 Grand Junction Media, Inc.
By using this site you agree to the Visitor Agreement and the Privacy Policy