IRS admits targeting conservative groups

[Kraken]

I'm surprised by each day that goes by with our resident conservatives keeping the Benghazi story alive, yet no thread for this more outrageous abuse of power. So here one is.

In case you live in a bubble, the IRS has admitted that it selectively targeted groups with "tea party", "patriot", and similar right-wing keywords in their names to investigate their non-profit status. What began with a simple "oops, our bad!" from the IRS has been spreading by the day. Here's a summary of our story so far.

What do you think? Will the blame stop with overzealous low-level IRS employees, as the initial reports said, or blow up on the administration or Democrats in general? Why are political action groups of any stripe tax-exempt in the first place?

[El Guapo]

Well, political action groups are not tax exempt, at least they're not supposed to be. This came about because as the article notes "social welfare" groups are allowed to engage in incidental political activity as long as it doesn't overwhelm their social welfare mission. But there's a lot of indication that this is being abused - IIRC Karl Rove's group (Political Crossroads, or whatever it's called) is a social welfare group but obviously they're engaged almost exclusively in political activity.

So my sense is that the reason why they were searching for things like "Tea Party" post 2010 is that it's not unreasonable to think that a group labeled "Tea Party" is engaged in significant amounts of political activity.

My question is whether they only did this for right wing groups or whether there were also searches for more left leaning groups. Given that post-2010 there's probably a lot more conservative political groups forming than liberal ones I wouldn't expect them to match up exactly, but presumably there ought to be some proportionate scrutiny of liberal social welfare groups.

But yeah, this will absolutely blow up on the democrats. BUT I doubt anyone beyond low to mid level IRS employees lose their jobs.

[Zarathud]

Tempest over a teapot. Tea Party groups aren't the only 501(c)(4)s targeted. I work with several liberal groups that have recieved a similar shakedown from the IRS. These groups are asking to be free from tax and need to meet some legal standards that require interpretation. The "shortcut" of pulling tea party groups wasn't right, but ALL applicants should expect a thorough review of their activities.

The key to avoid getting hammered is having a clear, consistent explanation how the group promotes "social welfare" aside from political goals. The IRS looks at internet activity and similar groups -- and woe be unto you if that activity raises more questions than it answers.

I am not suprised the tea party grassroots got themselves into trouble. I still have no idea of what social good they're advancing other than politics. At least the NRA can say they exist to promote gun ownership and, thus, a well armed militia in times of crisis.

[Teggy]

Granted, I haven't read much more than one article, but the explanation that was given was that all the tea party groups were put into a single pile because they would have similarities and would be easier for the auditors (or whatever they are called) to process. It was not something that came from above, but what the individual workers did.

I guess the question is whether or not you believe that.

[Kraken]

the reason why they were searching for things like "Tea Party" post 2010 is that it's not unreasonable to think that a group labeled "Tea Party" is engaged in significant amounts of political activity.

So maybe it's as straightforward as picking the low-hanging fruit.

It was not something that came from above, but what the individual workers did.

I guess the question is whether or not you believe that.

And that's where the investigation will be centered. If it came down from above we're potentially looking at the shade of Nixon's enemies list. Wingnuts on both sides thrive on persecution, real or perceived.

The key to avoid getting hammered is having a clear, consistent explanation how the group promotes "social welfare" aside from political goals. The IRS looks at internet activity and similar groups -- and woe be unto you if that activity raises more questions than it answers.

One pundit suggested that the IRS should be exempting specific activities rather than groups in general. Would that create a tax-prep nightmare for "social welfare" groups or are they already keeping records at that level?

[LawBeefaroni]

So maybe it's as straightforward as picking the low-hanging fruit.

Seems that way. Think of it as using name-based profiling as a shortcut.

[Rip]

I have seen this one as the minion doing what they thought the bosses wanted. That doesn't aggravate me a fraction as much failing to provide appropriate security for our ambassador and his staff and most importantly failing to react with as much for as possible and then trying to scrub the statements made concerning it of anything that disclosed how bad you screwed the pooch.

When the IRS starts gunning down Tea Partiers and blaming it on a youtube video perhaps I will be able to muster up as much anger about it.

[Holman]

IRS offices already receive threats from time to time. I wonder if there will be an uptick now.

[Isgrimnur]

That doesn't aggravate me a fraction as much failing to provide appropriate security for our ambassador and his staff

Where's the outrage over the dozen embassy attacks during the Bush administration? Seems like embassy security has always been a problem, especially when the House majority has specifically targeted it for cuts.

[Pyperkub]

Every 501(c)4 that cropped up in the year or two before the election should be investigated, starting with those that had/have/shared offices with Lobbyist/Political groups working to affect the elections.

It is my belief that most of these might have been caught using the filtering criteria the IRS agents used, but the filtering criteria was definitely politically charged. With limited resources, this is understandable.

The problem isn't necessarily the IRS, it's the stupid Citizen's United decision that money=speech, and the methodology that anonymous money must be allowed unchecked.

I have no doubt that there were millions of dollars worth of shenanigans (billions?) and that the IRS really needed to act.They could have done so better.

For voters disgusted by nasty campaign ads and frustrated that they don’t know who is paying for them, there is plenty of blame to go around. The Supreme Court for allowing the dark money takeover of our elections, Congress for failing to enact the DISCLOSE Act, the Federal Election Commission for its failure to enforce laws already on the books. Add to that list the IRS, for its apparent willingness to look the other way while millions of dollars are laundered through fake nonprofit organizations whose only purpose is to influence elections.

[em2nought]

I still have no idea of what social good they're advancing other than politics.

Yeah, the idea of personal or fiscal responsibility belongs in the past, just like those slave owning forefathers.

[Daehawk]

It's bad form if not outright illegal.

[Pyperkub]

Why are political action groups of any stripe tax-exempt in the first place?

Because these aren't supposed to be political groups (as noted above to a certain degree), but as Stephen Colbert so adroitly demonstrated, they were ripe for abuse. It is in fact, illegal for them to be Political groups first and foremost.

[Arcanis]

I didn't have the energy to post anything about this. I do think it was some low level people, especially since I saw a report that it was a local/regional issue, that were making politically motivated decisions on who to audit based on what they thought those higher up the chain wanted, and thus would reward them for. I've seen some people going nuts over this and while I find it annoying I just don't care enough to get all hot and bothered. Politics as usual unfortunately (that is my way of saying I won't be surprised if liberal groups get the 3rd degree the next time there is a R at 1600 Penn.)

As Rip said I'm more upset over Bengazi, though for me it is more so the obvious lies and coverup. Someone mad a choice and it was a bad one, maybe even the best of a list of bad options, but they needed to admit it and move forward having learned from it rather than make up a really crappy cover story.

Just as a forewarning for everyone. If my facebook is any indicator you can expect the next big explosion to be over government officials "spying" on the AP. This one is just starting to make the outrage rounds.

[Zarathud]

The Treasury Inspector General's comprehensive report shows that senior IRS officials first learned in June 2011 that Tea Party groups were being reviewed by one of their specialized units, and changed the criteria in March 2012 for identifying cases for special review to “political action type organizations involved in limiting or expanding government,” or those involved in “educating on the constitution and bill of rights, and social economic reform/movements.” It seems to me like a bureaucratic response trying to figure out how to assess the cases in a uniform manner. The IRS generally has increased scrutiny of tax-exempt organizations over the past few years, and agents regularly have difficulty getting their supervisors to sign off when the organization doesn't fall within a routine area. I have a "progressive" type 501(c)(4) organization caught up in this dragnet, so it's not just the Tea Party.

One pundit suggested that the IRS should be exempting specific activities rather than groups in general. Would that create a tax-prep nightmare for "social welfare" groups or are they already keeping records at that level?

That pundit is an idiot. There are specific tax-exempt activities defined under the tax code -- "social welfare" under 501(c)(4) and "charitable, educational, scientific and religious" or amateur sports organizations under 501(c)(3). Those groups have to apply to the IRS to show their activities and records are consistent with doing those activities.

I still have no idea of what social good they're advancing other than politics.

Yeah, the idea of personal or fiscal responsibility belongs in the past, just like those slave owning forefathers.

Fiscal responsibility is a political good, not a social good. Personal responsibility is a meaningless phrase unless you put it into some context. A political organization must prove that its activities satisfy the requirements to avoid income tax. Karl Rove's Crossroads GPS provided an excellent blueprint for Tea Party groups to follow, but they still screwed it up. The Crossroads GPS 501(c)(4) exemption application is a mastery of saying nothing except that it would meet the requirements of being a social welfare organization while engaging in research, public education and political activity. It says it will "educate, equip and engage American citizens to take action on important economic and legislative issues that will shape our nation's future." The stated goal is to "build grassroots support for legislative and policy changes that promote private sector economic growth, reduce needless government regulations, impose stronger financial disciple and accountability on government, and strengthen America's national security." The Tea Party doesn't have any clear vision on what they're doing, unlike our slave owning forefathers.

[Holman]

This is probably a Democratic scheme to re-energize the Tea Party. GOP primaries are just around the corner, after all.

[Gavin]

Sounds to me like they did some research and found out that some lower level employees were mucking about and apologized for it.

In all reality, new entities are rife with abuses of the system by opportunists. As such, there are completely legitimate reasons to earmark newly formed affiliations for closer attention that have nothing to do with political affiliations and the IRS hasn't said this wasn't the case, just that it was being done without being cleared to be done by senior level officials.

In any event, I don't think any of us would really buy that this wasn't politically motivated. That being said, having worked as a contracted agent for one such organization (and, unfortunately being under nondisclosure for another year or so), I can tell you that the government is right to be wary of so many companies springing up under that affiliation. Not that I knew they were one at the time. I'd probably still have done the work considering the pay, but if I could also have foreseen how they'd have used my work I would likely not have taken the job.

[JSHAW]

If the past is any indicator Carney and Obama will deny, deny, deny any wrong doings on anything and all will be forgotten by the mainstream liberal in within 30-60 days. Like always the current administration will get a pass.

Had any of this happened with Bush calls for impeachment would already be out there.

[Combustible Lemur]

If the past is any indicator Carney and Obama will deny, deny, deny any wrong doings on anything and all will be forgotten by the mainstream liberal in within 30-60 days. Like always the current administration will get a pass.

Had any of this happened with Bush calls for impeachment would already be out there.

Heh.

Sent courtesy of the Galaxy.... note2.

[El Guapo]

If the past is any indicator Carney and Obama will deny, deny, deny any wrong doings on anything and all will be forgotten by the mainstream liberal in within 30-60 days. Like always the current administration will get a pass.

Had any of this happened with Bush calls for impeachment would already be out there.

Yes, and I'm sure that the GOP's response to Benghazi would have been identical if Romney was president. It's almost as if we live in a world of partisan politics!

[Gavin]

Yes, and I'm sure that the GOP's response to Benghazi would have been identical if Romney was president. It's almost as if we live in a world of partisan politics!

I'm just not sure what their end goal is here.

[Enough]

If the past is any indicator Carney and Obama will deny, deny, deny any wrong doings on anything and all will be forgotten by the mainstream liberal in within 30-60 days. Like always the current administration will get a pass.

Had any of this happened with Bush calls for impeachment would already be out there.

You mean like a mainline conservative such as George Will calling for impeachment? Did you seriously believe that conservatives wouldn't milk this?

[Enough]

Yes, and I'm sure that the GOP's response to Benghazi would have been identical if Romney was president. It's almost as if we live in a world of partisan politics!

I'm just not sure what their end goal is here.

Make Hillary too toxic to run for POTUS?

[Isgrimnur]

If the past is any indicator Carney and Obama will deny, deny, deny any wrong doings on anything and all will be forgotten by the mainstream liberal in within 30-60 days. Like always the current administration will get a pass.

Had any of this happened with Bush calls for impeachment would already be out there.

Bullshit

President Obama said today he has "no patience" for reports that the Internal Revenue Service singled out conservative groups for additional scrutiny, promising accountability if allegations of political motivations at the agency turn out to be true.

"So we'll wait and see what exactly all the details and the facts are," Obama said at a news conference. "But I've got no patience with it. I will not tolerate it. And we'll make sure that we find out exactly what happened on this."

[Zarathud]

I am looking at a few selected pages of the IRS information requests released by the American Center for Law and Juatice. It's basically a questionaire about who was on their board, how they fundraised, what employees they had, what events they conducted, what candidates they were involved with (and what their role was), what voter education activities were done and what news media activities. You don't get that detailed of a request without failing to provide decent answers -- the candidate questions were asked multiple times because partisan politics is NOT a protected exempt activity.

[malchior]

I haven't looked into this much but I'm curious what the scope is here? Was this one group, one office or was there a larger initiative within the IRS?

[hepcat]

Here's a Q&Q. Depending on who you talk to, it's a horrible scandal involving Obama himself, a small office in Cincinnati going rogue, or the IRS being the IRS.

[malchior]

That was exactly what I wanted to see. Thanks! I can see why some are very upset about it. It badly fails the sniff test. I'm sure Congress will do their best to get to the bottom of this in an even-handed manner.

[JSHAW]

If the past is any indicator Carney and Obama will deny, deny, deny any wrong doings on anything and all will be forgotten by the mainstream liberal in within 30-60 days. Like always the current administration will get a pass.

Had any of this happened with Bush calls for impeachment would already be out there.

You mean like a mainline conservative such as George Will calling for impeachment? Did you seriously believe that conservatives wouldn't milk this?

I don't care who's milking what.

IF the Obama administration had told the TRUTH, we still know what the definition of TRUTH is, about Benghazi they wouldn't be in the position they are in today. How many times have they changed their talking points? Well we know how many times those talking points got changed before Rice went on 5 networks to blame it on a youtube video, which wasn't the truth. C'mon....Carney is trying to make blame the people who are STILL trying to get all the facts on it, he's crying politics, which it isn't. WHO gave the order for special forces to stand down? STILL haven't been giving the truth on that one.

Hillary said "what does it matter now". It matters to the families of the people who died in the Embassy. THAT'S who it matters to. THE TRUTH.

Now it's IRS targeting and AP issue.....I hope to all that is HOLY that the press keep hammering away until Obama sheds some REAL tears.

[hepcat]

Congratulations on becoming a US citizen! I know this must be all new to you, so why don't you take some time to review the history of politics in our great country. We have two primary parties: Republicans and Democrats. The current president is a Democrat, so that's riling up the Republicans who are claiming he lied about Benghazi. Two terms ago we had a Republican president and that riled up the Democrats who claimed he lied about WMD's in Iraq. It's all very interesting.

And again, welcome!

[Isgrimnur]

And the Attorney General has ordered an investigation.

[El Guapo]

I wonder what statutes could plausibly have been violated. It seems odd that there would be statutes specifically criminalizing singling out audit targets. The NY Times article is pretty vague, just saying that there may be relevant statutes within the IRS code.

[Enough]

If the past is any indicator Carney and Obama will deny, deny, deny any wrong doings on anything and all will be forgotten by the mainstream liberal in within 30-60 days. Like always the current administration will get a pass.

Had any of this happened with Bush calls for impeachment would already be out there.

You mean like a mainline conservative such as George Will calling for impeachment? Did you seriously believe that conservatives wouldn't milk this?

I don't care who's milking what.

IF the Obama administration had told the TRUTH, we still know what the definition of TRUTH is, about Benghazi they wouldn't be in the position they are in today. How many times have they changed their talking points? Well we know how many times those talking points got changed before Rice went on 5 networks to blame it on a youtube video, which wasn't the truth. C'mon....Carney is trying to make blame the people who are STILL trying to get all the facts on it, he's crying politics, which it isn't. WHO gave the order for special forces to stand down? STILL haven't been giving the truth on that one.

Hillary said "what does it matter now". It matters to the families of the people who died in the Embassy. THAT'S who it matters to. THE TRUTH.

Now it's IRS targeting and AP issue.....I hope to all that is HOLY that the press keep hammering away until Obama sheds some REAL tears.

Oh, I'm sorry I thought you had said in the quoted post that,

Had any of this happened with Bush calls for impeachment would already be out there.

And what do you know, the calls for impeachment ARE already out there. Thankfully, you don't care.

[Gavin]

Make Hillary too toxic to run for POTUS?

Ah... of course.

[Exodor]

Isn't the IRS tasked with making sure tax-exempt groups are eligible for that exemption?


Selective enforcement is horseshit but this seems to be blown way out of propirtion.

[Anonymous Bosch]

Congratulations on becoming a US citizen! I know this must be all new to you, so why don't you take some time to review the history of politics in our great country. We have two primary parties: Republicans and Democrats. The current president is a Democrat, so that's riling up the Republicans who are claiming he lied about Benghazi. Two terms ago we had a Republican president and that riled up the Democrats who claimed he lied about WMD's in Iraq. It's all very interesting.

And again, welcome!

If you think the criticism the Obama administration has received over this is purely partisan in nature, you simply aren't paying attention. e.g. Take a look at what Howard Fineman, who can hardly be described as a right-wing partisan, said about it on MSNBC.

[Holman]

From what I've seen, Obama himself thinks it was the wrong move to make and has condemned it. But that doesn't fit with the theme of Obama ruthlessly crushing opposition political expression, I guess.

[hepcat]

If you think the criticism the Obama administration has received over this is purely partisan in nature, you simply aren't paying attention.

Never said "purely". Just implied "mostly".

Take a look at what Howard Fineman, who can hardly be described as a right-wing partisan, said about it on MSNBC.

And of course you always have a few that cross the fence. Just like Bush's former Secretary of Defense mocking the GOP attacks on Obama for Benghazi.

I was responding to a heated diatribe against Obama in which a poster had formerly tried to say that Bush would've been raked over the coals for the same kind of thing...which in fact DID happen on more than one occasion. Ergo: welcome to American politics. One side is always gonna be pissed when their side isn't in office.

Am I downplaying the IRS "scandal"? Probably. But that's only because no one has all the facts yet.

[Zarathud]

Isn't the IRS tasked with making sure tax-exempt groups are eligible for that exemption?


Selective enforcement is horseshit but this seems to be blown way out of propirtion.

Exactly this. When the IRS gets multiple requests on an issue, it often pulls them together so the IRS can be consistent. Doing so based on names was stupid, but this is no Nixon era witch hunt.

These groups are submitting to IRS scrutiny by requesting tax exempt status. Liberal groups have been subject to the same scrutiny -- as I know from personal experience. I represent a progressive 501(c)(4) group where the agent approves all my answers but can't get her supervisor to sign off. I can wait or request rejection then file a lawsuit.

Frankly, the lists of redacted questions the Tea Party groups are floating around make me laugh. Once 501(c)(4) status is granted, anyone can demand to see the unredacted full correspondence. I expect that will show the Tea Party groups didn't provide adequate answers or refused to coooperate based on OUTRAGE.

[Zekester]

That doesn't aggravate me a fraction as much failing to provide appropriate security for our ambassador and his staff

Where's the outrage over the dozen embassy attacks during the Bush administration? Seems like embassy security has always been a problem, especially when the House majority has specifically targeted it for cuts.

I'm been absent from political discussions for a long time, but I can't pass this up.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

Are you freaking kidding me? Bush was absolutely slammed for EVERYTHING. It was on every nightly news channel EVERY night. And still is, as proven by your post.



.