show. the point is it is inappropriate, contrary to statute, and leads us down this never neverland path, and i don t care if it is an organization on the right or the left, they shouldn t disguise political action behind the guise of social welfare. it is not healthy, it s not right, it s not legal, we should stop it. let s listen to how deep the ignorance runs on the republican side on this, what aaron shock had to say today. we re not having a debate about whether or not we agree with citizens united, we re not having a debate about whether or not we want to change 501(c)4 or change 501(c)3 processes. if that s your goal, perhaps introduce legislation to do so. congressman, he clearly did not hear or understand what you had to say today. he clearly doesn t have the vaguest idea what 501(c)4 law actually says, which is none of those people should have had
up instead of the word congress wrote? yeah, i am not familiar with anybody teasing out the history on that. it would be interesting. but actually i think a side show. the point is it is inappropriate, contrary to statute, and leads us down this never neverland path, and i don t care if it is an organization on the right or the left, they shouldn t disguise political action behind the guise of social welfare. it is not healthy, it s not right, it s not legal, we should stop it. let s listen to how deep the ignorance runs on the republican side on this, what aaron shock had to say today. we re not having a debate about whether or not we agree with citizens united, we re not having a debate about whether or not we want to change 501(c)4 or change 501(c)3 processes. if that s your goal, perhaps introduce legislation to do so. congressman, he clearly did
the other side. and i think that liberals should just say, we ll give it all up. because this makes no sense to have these secret donors being able to finance political ads under the guise of social welfare. e.j., i totally respect that it s something like 84 of the applications were by conservative groups, some liberal groups did get targeted by the irs investigation. but this is same ament around super pacs. liberals should just say this is bad. what s bad for the goose is bad for the gander. they haven t. they followed suit. the president himself has an ongoing superpac, much to the chagrin of many folks who wanted to see campaign finance reform. this is rooted in the decision of january 2012, to go along and support his own super pac. he made the decision along with david axelrod and the brain trust to say we re going to put down our immediate objections to citizens united and play ball this way. can the republicans run on this in 2014?