28 Mar 2011, 11:55 am
28 Mar 2011, 12:04 pm
28 Mar 2011, 12:35 pm
28 Mar 2011, 2:16 pm
28 Mar 2011, 3:01 pm
28 Mar 2011, 3:08 pm
28 Mar 2011, 3:43 pm
jamieboy wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Vexcalibur wrote:
You mean like Rupert Murdoch?
Murdoch is not responsible for collapsing currencies of countries.
No but he does have a major say in the electoral process of democratic states. His Sun newspaper is considered the reason why the conservative party won 4 elections on the spin in the UK by most serious analysts.
Makes one wonder how bad the other newspapers are (from a credibility standpoint) in the UK if his paper has that much influence.
Just read something that shows Media Matters may not have thought things through when they issued the declaration.
To that end, Brock told Politico that MM will “focus on [News Corp. CEO Rupert] Murdoch and trying to disrupt his commercial interests ..." Murdoch is the founder of Fox News and a media titan with newspaper, broadcast, Internet and other media countries around the world.
There is nothing in the Politico article to suggest that Brock, who was paid just under $300,000 in 2009, according to the group's most recently available tax return, plans to ask the IRS to change his organization's tax status as a 501(C)(3) tax-exempt educational foundation.
Being a C3 puts MM in the non-profit, non-commercial sector, and it also bars the organzation from participating in partisan political activity. This new, more aggressive stance, however, appears to run directly counter to the government's requirements for maintaining a C3 tax status.
Since Brock classifies Fox News as the "leader" of the Republican Party, by his own description he is involving his organization in a partisan battle. High-priced K Street lawyers can probably find a federal judge or a sympathetic IRS bureaucrat willing to either look the other way or accept some sort of MM rationale such as that it is merely providing educational information about a partisan group.
But in the IRS application for 501(C)(3) tax-exempt educational foundation status, Section VIII, Question I asks the applicant: "Do you support or oppose candidates in political campaigns in any way?" (Emphasis added).
Under Brock's definition of Fox News, it appears he is setting MM on a course of actively opposing all Republican candidates. Brandon Kiser at The Right Sphere blog argues that this new statement of MM's mission means it must change its tax status.
Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/bel ... z1Hve9cLr7
They can't have it both ways, you can't be a non-profit and engage in partisan attackfests. While leftist judges probably will let them get away with breaking the law (as would Obama's Attorney General), fact remains they'd still be committing a felony (tax fraud).
28 Mar 2011, 4:09 pm
Inuyasha wrote:
jamieboy wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Vexcalibur wrote:
You mean like Rupert Murdoch?
Murdoch is not responsible for collapsing currencies of countries.
No but he does have a major say in the electoral process of democratic states. His Sun newspaper is considered the reason why the conservative party won 4 elections on the spin in the UK by most serious analysts.
Makes one wonder how bad the other newspapers are (from a credibility standpoint) in the UK if his paper has that much influence.
Just read something that shows Media Matters may not have thought things through when they issued the declaration.
To that end, Brock told Politico that MM will “focus on [News Corp. CEO Rupert] Murdoch and trying to disrupt his commercial interests ..." Murdoch is the founder of Fox News and a media titan with newspaper, broadcast, Internet and other media countries around the world.
There is nothing in the Politico article to suggest that Brock, who was paid just under $300,000 in 2009, according to the group's most recently available tax return, plans to ask the IRS to change his organization's tax status as a 501(C)(3) tax-exempt educational foundation.
Being a C3 puts MM in the non-profit, non-commercial sector, and it also bars the organzation from participating in partisan political activity. This new, more aggressive stance, however, appears to run directly counter to the government's requirements for maintaining a C3 tax status.
Since Brock classifies Fox News as the "leader" of the Republican Party, by his own description he is involving his organization in a partisan battle. High-priced K Street lawyers can probably find a federal judge or a sympathetic IRS bureaucrat willing to either look the other way or accept some sort of MM rationale such as that it is merely providing educational information about a partisan group.
But in the IRS application for 501(C)(3) tax-exempt educational foundation status, Section VIII, Question I asks the applicant: "Do you support or oppose candidates in political campaigns in any way?" (Emphasis added).
Under Brock's definition of Fox News, it appears he is setting MM on a course of actively opposing all Republican candidates. Brandon Kiser at The Right Sphere blog argues that this new statement of MM's mission means it must change its tax status.
Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/bel ... z1Hve9cLr7
They can't have it both ways, you can't be a non-profit and engage in partisan attackfests. While leftist judges probably will let them get away with breaking the law (as would Obama's Attorney General), fact remains they'd still be committing a felony (tax fraud).
This is what featured on page 3 of Britains most credible newspaper today:
*there were some boobs here at one point. Shame you missed them*
Last edited by jamieboy on 28 Mar 2011, 5:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
28 Mar 2011, 4:09 pm
28 Mar 2011, 4:13 pm
28 Mar 2011, 4:16 pm
28 Mar 2011, 4:21 pm
28 Mar 2011, 4:28 pm
28 Mar 2011, 4:29 pm
28 Mar 2011, 4:33 pm
28 Mar 2011, 4:40 pm
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| Do you think getting diagnosed matters? |
20 Dec 2024, 3:29 pm |
| Best Representation I've Seen in Media |
26 Oct 2024, 6:21 pm |
| I sometimes feel that social media should never have existed |
28 Nov 2024, 9:45 pm |
| X users jump to Bluesky (social media) |
28 Nov 2024, 7:15 am |
