Lerner ignored questionable union political activities

Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar to the right or below. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.

Working for the Democratic Party: Newly released emails show that Lois Lerner once dismissed complaints that labor unions were not reporting to the IRS millions of dollars in political activities — almost all of which helped Democrats — that they did report to the Labor Department.

In 2006, the year leading up to Lerner’s email, the national headquarters for the AFL-CIO reported no direct or indirect political expenditures with the IRS on their 990 form, leaving the line 81a blank. That same year, the AFL-CIO reported $29,585,661 in political activities with the Department of Labor. Also in 2006 the Teamsters Union reported no political expenditures with the IRS while at the same time reporting $7,081,965 with the Labor Department. Again in 2006, Unite-Here reported no political activity with the IRS and $1,451,002 with the Labor Department. In 2005, the National Education Association also reported no political expenditures with the IRS while at the same time reporting $24,985,250 with the Labor Department.

The lack of reporting to the IRS was essentially illegal. Yet, when complaints were made to Lerner about this, she poo-pooed the issue and apparently squelched further investigations.


One comment

  • Cotour

    And here it is on the other end of the bureaucracy, politicians being paid after the fact and for their knowledge and influence in how to manipulate government. The spectrum runs from inside operatives like Lois Learner to useful inside tools like Eric Cantor (they are all paid off after the fact, its a back loaded system) and We The People live somewhere in between them.


    There should probably be established a solid three year jail sentence for operatives like Learner and a three year no contact / consulting for the likes of Cantor. As long as it is understood that there will be no consequences for either then these abuses will continue. Their knowledge, experience and ability to influence is an acquired skill set and is valuable, is it reasonable to insist on such harsh consequences? Do we really want to stifle the “game” and attempt to control how it is played to this level? Should there be rules like these in the war that is politics? Are there really any rules in war?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *