U.S. Treasury moves to protect identities of 'dark money' political donors

[Roland99]

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-tax-groups/us-treasury-moves-to-protect-identities-of-dark-money-political-donors-idUSKBN1K704F

The policy change, heralded by conservatives as an advance for free speech, maintains donor disclosure requirements for traditional charity groups organized to receive tax-exempt donations under a section of the Internal Revenue code known as 501(c)(3), the Treasury said.

...

The change protects the privacy of wealthy donors of “dark money” donations to politically active groups. Conservatives have complained that the disclosures to the IRS, though not public, were susceptible to media leaks.

The issue of the IRS’s handling of nonprofit political groups exploded into headlines several years ago when the federal tax agency was found to have targeted tax-exempt political groups aligned with the conservative Tea Party movement for greater scrutiny.

“It is important to emphasize that this change will in no way limit transparency,” Mnuchin said. “The same information about tax-exempt organizations that was previously available to the public will continue to be available, while private taxpayer information will be better protected.”

[beachbum bob]

1. Perhaps we should encourage the countries with socialism start sending

Dark money to democrats?

[Va Lefty]

2. "It is important to emphasize that this change will in no way limit transparency,"

v

[former9thward]

3. Whoever wrote this does not know what they are talking about.

It was written by "Reuters staff" -- whatever that means -- probably some summer college interns. This rule is about 501(c)(3)s. Political groups are mainly 527s or 501(c)(4)s. This rule does not affect them. The article is wrong.

[Roland99]

4. That's mentioned in the first quoted paragraph

It’s the individuals at discussion

[former9thward]

5. It is a false headline.

"U.S. Treasury moves to protect identities of 'dark money' political donors " That is false. This rule has nothing to do with political donors.

[Roland99]

6. Not sure why you get that. Article (and I quoted it) shows it plainly

And the first paragraph of the article, itself, explains the type of donors who’d be protected

[former9thward]

7. It says political donors.

The rule is about 501(c)(3)s. NOT political donors. 501(c)(3)s do not do political campaigns. The article is flat wrong. Whoever wrote it does not understand the difference between the various types of groups

[Roland99]

8. Why are you stuck on one type of group?

The U.S. Treasury said on Monday that it will no longer require certain tax-exempt organizations including politically active nonprofit groups, such as the National Rifle Association and Planned Parenthood, to identify their financial donors to U.S. tax authorities.

[former9thward]

9. Because the rule ONLY applies to one type of group.

501(c)(3)s. That type of group does not do political campaigning. The article sloppily written probably by a college intern.

[Roland99]

10. So, "politically active nonprofit groups, such as the NRA" aren't part of this discussion...

even though the article is all about them?!

Wow...I'm completely confused by your obstinance.

[former9thward]

11. The only reason you are confused is the article is poorly written and you want to believe it.

The NRA, unions and Planned Parenthood have different groups for tax purposes. This rule applies to their 501(c)(3) creations. Their political groups are 501(c)(4)s and 527s. The rule does not apply to the political groupings. But please believe the article. I sure it is true in some universe. Have a good day!

[Roland99]

12. That is the point of the article! Those other groups' donors remain "dark"!

[former9thward]

13. No its not.

The article is trying to imply there are unknown donors for the political groups. That is false they are known and the rule changes nothing about them.

[Roland99]

14. oh dear gawd

yes it is!

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100210890228