27 Oct 2011, 10:19 pm
27 Oct 2011, 10:50 pm
28 Oct 2011, 9:48 am
28 Oct 2011, 2:21 pm
28 Oct 2011, 4:59 pm
28 Oct 2011, 5:12 pm
pandabear wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
It doesn't take a flippin Einstein to figure out that the mainstream media (including Mediamatters) was in the tank for Barrack Obama back in 2008.
Fine. It doesn't take a flippin Einstein. Show us what you have already!
From the left wing New York Times:
Ripping a page from an old Republican Party playbook, Media Matters has given the Democrats a weapon they have not had in previous campaigns: a rapid-fire, technologically sophisticated means to call out what it considers “conservative misinformation” on air or in print, then feed it to a Rolodex of reporters, cable channels and bloggers hungry for grist.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/01/washi ... media.html
While they try to paint it in the best possible light, they were stupid to admit that Mediamatters is helping Democrats get elected.
From Left wing group Daily Beast
And then—nothing happened. But three days later, in a glass-sheathed building atop Washington's Buddha Bar, Eric Hananoki, a 27-year-old with a growth of stubble, discovered the audio on his computer. At 5:41 p.m., he posted a blog item for the liberal advocacy group Media Matters, declaring that Huckabee had "attacked actress Natalie Portman for having a child 'out of wedlock.'" Five hours later, MSNBC's Ed Schultz was skewering Huckabee, and the story quickly ricocheted from TMZ to Politico to Stephen Colbert.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... gures.html
While it tries to paint it in the best possible light, it also notes Media Matters is funded by none other than George Soros.
pandabear wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
That's why I included the among other things, by itself the email thing isn't breaking the rules, however the systematic harassment of Sarah Palin and any other critic of Barack Obama is something that should give anyone pause.
Okay, fine. No rule was broken.
Heh, it actually shows the partisanship.
pandabear wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
If they are breaking other laws, then as a consequence, that also means they are breaking tax law too.
How does breaking non-tax laws mean that Media Matters is breaking tax law?
Cause they are abusing their tax-exempt status while they are breaking other laws.
pandabear wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Actually, we have established Media Matters is violating tax law, in fact your statement about Fox News having grounds to sue Media Matters for libel (and therefore they can also sue over harassment), means you've admitted that Media Matters is violating tax law.
The tax laws are completely separate from libel laws. Fox News suing for libel doesn't mean that Media Matters has violated any tax law. If I say that Fox News is anti-Semitic, Fox News might sue me, but that doesn't make me guilty of violating a tax law. Slander and libel are untaxed.
It has to do with them abusing their tax-exempt status for illegal activities.
pandabear wrote:
Quote:
pandabear wrote:
If Fox News is benefitting, have you considered the possibility that Media Matters might actually be one of Rupert Murdoch's sock puppets?
Nope, it actually looks more like Media Matters badly miscalculated, cause Rupert Murdoch as far as I know hasn't donated 1 dime to Media Matters, there is proof though that Media Matters could be a sock puppet of George Soros though, if you follow the money.
Perhaps Rupert Murdoch is George Soros' sock puppet, then. But, such speculation is beyond the scope of the present inquiry.
28 Oct 2011, 8:57 pm
Inuyasha wrote:
From the left wing New York Times:
Ripping a page from an old Republican Party playbook, Media Matters has given the Democrats a weapon they have not had in previous campaigns: a rapid-fire, technologically sophisticated means to call out what it considers “conservative misinformation” on air or in print, then feed it to a Rolodex of reporters, cable channels and bloggers hungry for grist.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/01/washi ... media.html
While they try to paint it in the best possible light, they were stupid to admit that Mediamatters is helping Democrats get elected.
From Left wing group Daily Beast
And then—nothing happened. But three days later, in a glass-sheathed building atop Washington's Buddha Bar, Eric Hananoki, a 27-year-old with a growth of stubble, discovered the audio on his computer. At 5:41 p.m., he posted a blog item for the liberal advocacy group Media Matters, declaring that Huckabee had "attacked actress Natalie Portman for having a child 'out of wedlock.'" Five hours later, MSNBC's Ed Schultz was skewering Huckabee, and the story quickly ricocheted from TMZ to Politico to Stephen Colbert.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... gures.html
Ripping a page from an old Republican Party playbook, Media Matters has given the Democrats a weapon they have not had in previous campaigns: a rapid-fire, technologically sophisticated means to call out what it considers “conservative misinformation” on air or in print, then feed it to a Rolodex of reporters, cable channels and bloggers hungry for grist.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/01/washi ... media.html
While they try to paint it in the best possible light, they were stupid to admit that Mediamatters is helping Democrats get elected.
From Left wing group Daily Beast
And then—nothing happened. But three days later, in a glass-sheathed building atop Washington's Buddha Bar, Eric Hananoki, a 27-year-old with a growth of stubble, discovered the audio on his computer. At 5:41 p.m., he posted a blog item for the liberal advocacy group Media Matters, declaring that Huckabee had "attacked actress Natalie Portman for having a child 'out of wedlock.'" Five hours later, MSNBC's Ed Schultz was skewering Huckabee, and the story quickly ricocheted from TMZ to Politico to Stephen Colbert.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... gures.html
So, given the list of violations
I gather that you are focusing on Number 4, "Organization is involved in a political campaign." If proven to have been involved in a political campaign, then Media Matters clearly should have its non-profit status revoked.
From the IRS Website
IRS wrote:
The Restriction of Political Campaign Intervention by Section 501(c)(3) Tax-Exempt Organizations
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes.
Certain activities or expenditures may not be prohibited depending on the facts and circumstances. For example, certain voter education activities (including presenting public forums and publishing voter education guides) conducted in a non-partisan manner do not constitute prohibited political campaign activity. In addition, other activities intended to encourage people to participate in the electoral process, such as voter registration and get-out-the-vote drives, would not be prohibited political campaign activity if conducted in a non-partisan manner.
On the other hand, voter education or registration activities with evidence of bias that (a) would favor one candidate over another; (b) oppose a candidate in some manner; or (c) have the effect of favoring a candidate or group of candidates, will constitute prohibited participation or intervention.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes.
Certain activities or expenditures may not be prohibited depending on the facts and circumstances. For example, certain voter education activities (including presenting public forums and publishing voter education guides) conducted in a non-partisan manner do not constitute prohibited political campaign activity. In addition, other activities intended to encourage people to participate in the electoral process, such as voter registration and get-out-the-vote drives, would not be prohibited political campaign activity if conducted in a non-partisan manner.
On the other hand, voter education or registration activities with evidence of bias that (a) would favor one candidate over another; (b) oppose a candidate in some manner; or (c) have the effect of favoring a candidate or group of candidates, will constitute prohibited participation or intervention.
So, the question is: Does the Media Matters practice of calling out conservative misinformation constitute participating or intervening in political campaigns?
Inuyasha wrote:
While it tries to paint it in the best possible light, it also notes Media Matters is funded by none other than George Soros.
There is no law which precludes Mr. Soros from funding tax-exempt organizations. This is irrelevant.
Quote:
pandabear wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
If they are breaking other laws, then as a consequence, that also means they are breaking tax law too.
How does breaking non-tax laws mean that Media Matters is breaking tax law?
Cause they are abusing their tax-exempt status while they are breaking other laws.
I don't want to go around any more circles on this one. Let's focus on the tax-exempt status, shall we? I don't know what other laws you are accusing them of breaking, how they would abuse their tax-exempt status to break the laws, and why abusing their tax exempt status to break the laws would be against the law.
Quote:
Quote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Actually, we have established Media Matters is violating tax law, in fact your statement about Fox News having grounds to sue Media Matters for libel (and therefore they can also sue over harassment), means you've admitted that Media Matters is violating tax law.
The tax laws are completely separate from libel laws. Fox News suing for libel doesn't mean that Media Matters has violated any tax law. If I say that Fox News is anti-Semitic, Fox News might sue me, but that doesn't make me guilty of violating a tax law. Slander and libel are untaxed.
It has to do with them abusing their tax-exempt status for illegal activities.
This is just getting silly.
28 Oct 2011, 10:10 pm
30 Oct 2011, 10:24 am
01 Nov 2011, 2:11 pm
01 Nov 2011, 3:24 pm
The Court finds the Defendant, Media Matters, not guilty of violating US tax law concerning non-profit organizations.
Given the list of violations that would cause a non-profit organization to lose its tax-exempt status:
We focused our inquiry on Items 3, 4 and 5.
Item 3: Income/assets are being used to support illegal or terrorist activities. It was alleged that Media Matters' so-called "War" on Fox News was an illegal activity. The "War" involved calling out and correcting what Media Matters regarded as biases and inaccuracies in Fox News reports, and in seeking to persuade advertisers not to advertise on Fox News. Such activities do not involve criminal violations. If Fox News had felt that its business or reputation had been harmed, then Fox News would have the option of suing Media Matters in civil court. However, the Lead Attorney for the Prosecution stated that Fox News' business was actually being helped by Media Matters' attention. Consequently, it would appear that Fox News doesn't have a civil case to bring forward.
Item 4: Organization is involved in a political campaign. It was alleged that the information published by Media Matters had proved useful to President Obama and to other Democratic candidates in their political campaigns. Plenty of other non-profit organizations also publish information that can be used in political campaigns. Nothing was brought forward to suggest that Media Matters had been involved in a political campaign.
Item 5: Organization is involved in excessive lobbying activities. Nothing was brought forward to suggest that Media Matters had been involved in excessive lobbying activities.
The Court's decision is final. Those who disagree with the Court's decision are free to take it up directly with the IRS. The Fox News website contains all of the information. Most likely, the IRS will arrive at the same conclusion.
02 Nov 2011, 12:33 am
pandabear wrote:
The Court finds the Defendant, Media Matters, not guilty of violating US tax law concerning non-profit organizations.
pandabear, this is not a court, you are not a judge, and I already knew which way you would rule no matter what.
pandabear wrote:
Given the list of violations that would cause a non-profit organization to lose its tax-exempt status:
We focused our inquiry on Items 3, 4 and 5.
Item 3: Income/assets are being used to support illegal or terrorist activities. It was alleged that Media Matters' so-called "War" on Fox News was an illegal activity. The "War" involved calling out and correcting what Media Matters regarded as biases and inaccuracies in Fox News reports, and in seeking to persuade advertisers not to advertise on Fox News. Such activities do not involve criminal violations. If Fox News had felt that its business or reputation had been harmed, then Fox News would have the option of suing Media Matters in civil court. However, the Lead Attorney for the Prosecution stated that Fox News' business was actually being helped by Media Matters' attention. Consequently, it would appear that Fox News doesn't have a civil case to bring forward.
Item 4: Organization is involved in a political campaign. It was alleged that the information published by Media Matters had proved useful to President Obama and to other Democratic candidates in their political campaigns. Plenty of other non-profit organizations also publish information that can be used in political campaigns. Nothing was brought forward to suggest that Media Matters had been involved in a political campaign.
Item 5: Organization is involved in excessive lobbying activities. Nothing was brought forward to suggest that Media Matters had been involved in excessive lobbying activities.
The Court's decision is final. Those who disagree with the Court's decision are free to take it up directly with the IRS. The Fox News website contains all of the information. Most likely, the IRS will arrive at the same conclusion.
We focused our inquiry on Items 3, 4 and 5.
Item 3: Income/assets are being used to support illegal or terrorist activities. It was alleged that Media Matters' so-called "War" on Fox News was an illegal activity. The "War" involved calling out and correcting what Media Matters regarded as biases and inaccuracies in Fox News reports, and in seeking to persuade advertisers not to advertise on Fox News. Such activities do not involve criminal violations. If Fox News had felt that its business or reputation had been harmed, then Fox News would have the option of suing Media Matters in civil court. However, the Lead Attorney for the Prosecution stated that Fox News' business was actually being helped by Media Matters' attention. Consequently, it would appear that Fox News doesn't have a civil case to bring forward.
Item 4: Organization is involved in a political campaign. It was alleged that the information published by Media Matters had proved useful to President Obama and to other Democratic candidates in their political campaigns. Plenty of other non-profit organizations also publish information that can be used in political campaigns. Nothing was brought forward to suggest that Media Matters had been involved in a political campaign.
Item 5: Organization is involved in excessive lobbying activities. Nothing was brought forward to suggest that Media Matters had been involved in excessive lobbying activities.
The Court's decision is final. Those who disagree with the Court's decision are free to take it up directly with the IRS. The Fox News website contains all of the information. Most likely, the IRS will arrive at the same conclusion.
Actually, it is likely to be found that way by the IRS for political reasons, not legal reasons. This is the most corrupt DoJ in my lifetime, topping even the corruption of Bill Clinton and his IRS too.
You left out the blatently obvious fact that if media matters is engaging in illegal activity even if it is not listed, they are supposed to lose their tax-exempt status.
You even admitted that they were potentially violating other laws in their declared war on Fox News, and harassment of Fox News employees. Whether or not you choose to recognize that fact at the end of the day is irrelevent, cause you are not a judge, and this is not a court.
I find your talking down to me to be quite frankly rather obnoxious and would like it to stop.
02 Nov 2011, 8:22 am
techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,692
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi
02 Nov 2011, 8:40 am
02 Nov 2011, 9:14 am
techstepgenr8tion wrote:
I had to mark not guilty. CLEARLY, if its a liberal source doing such great and wonderful work it has to be big oil, Fox News, and 'Boss Hog' Rush trying to tare them down with calmunies. Heck, they shouldn't even have to pay taxes for the great work they're doing in exposing the evils of the capitalist propaghanda machine.
Oh the conservative "you guys do it too" moral defense.
Fox is partisan and is breaking no law by being so.
The "Fair and Balanced" tagline on the other hand break truth in advertising laws.
techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,692
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi
02 Nov 2011, 9:48 am
JakobVirgil wrote:
techstepgenr8tion wrote:
I had to mark not guilty. CLEARLY, if its a liberal source doing such great and wonderful work it has to be big oil, Fox News, and 'Boss Hog' Rush trying to tare them down with calmunies. Heck, they shouldn't even have to pay taxes for the great work they're doing in exposing the evils of the capitalist propaghanda machine.
Oh the conservative "you guys do it too" moral defense.
Fox is partisan and is breaking no law by being so.
The "Fair and Balanced" tagline on the other hand break truth in advertising laws.
Well right but, Fox doesn't take government money....or should we just say f*** the law, the world runs on emotion and feelings anyway and thus it shouldn't matter?
