The Internal Revenue Service has recently generated concern and new scrutiny for an intense and prolonged verification process specifically requested and directed towards conservative groups. While No-smoking gun has, as of yet, linked the democrats or Obama to anything beyond repeated requests to confirm potentially influential conservative groups followed the letter of the law, a plethora of information show the requests were directed specifically towards conservative groups themselves and not the specific problematic actions potentially from all charitable organizations. Virtually impossible to prove partisan intentions of the IRS without confessions or testimony under oath, the result their of their process was blatantly partisan. Even more distressing is the lack of concern from media, democrats, and Obama for partisan actions from an agency that must be non-partisan to function. They have chosen to hide behind the veil of unproven corrupt intentions, claiming no scandal exists as long as a weaponized IRS advances their agenda. On my mind has been the question of what is the best solution going forward concerning charitable organizations, politics, and taxes. I think I may have stumbled upon a possible solution.
What would happen if instead of declaring groups charitable organizations, groups and businesses would have the right to request funds be classified as charitable funds and exempt from taxation. Any funds declared charitable funds would be used only for the management of the charitable organization and already established charitable actions, outreach, and or education. Any and All funds received and used on lobbying, campaigning, or politics (to be better defined) would be subject to taxation. The tax would be the responsibility of group not the donor. Donor disclosure would be similar to what we have now with lots of room to improve.
How could progressives and democrats argue against increased taxes to raise revenue that are sourced from those with excess funds as proven by the voluntary nature of donations. How could they argue that their personal political motives to advance their agenda is of greater importance than the charity and compassion their taxes allow the government to provide. How could they argue one group’s political actions are of greater importance than another groups or even a church for that matter.