I do not agree that 501 and 401's should be cancelled because not everybody is motivated to save,
and whatever the government or the private sector can do to make people save is a good thing.
when people have money put away they make better financial decisions,and better spending habits
501c4's cover a large amount of organizations many of which are non controversial such as volunteer fire departments, I think we need to constantly be looking at 501c4's and making sure they fit under the guidelines of what is considered to be one but overall I don't think these should be cancelled.
This question is really asking if the Supreme Court reached the proper conclusions in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. The end result of that decision is that 501(c)(4) organizations (or SuperPACs in the form most relevant to this conversation) are not subject to campaign finance regulations. The simplest solution to this problem (that doesn't go so far as banning the organizations) would be to require all 501(c)(4) organizations to publish their list of donors. This would alleviate the problem of funds being used in support of elected officials but not disclosed to voters.
The 501(c)(4) is a vital part of our country's infrastructure, as it protects those who have served the nation and our society so well for so long. We cannot simply let these people go once they have retired, and leave them to their own devices. That is not what they deserve.
I believe the United States has a big problem when it comes to 501(c)(4)'s which are basically non-profit organizations that are suppose to promote social welfare causes. I think the IRS has been too lenient with these classifications and we have a lot of businesses classified as 501(c)(4)'s that should not be. That does not mean they should be canceled, it means the definition should be tightened.