The IRS should do more, not less, scrutinizing of political groups

[xchrom]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/14/irs-target-political-groups-citizens-united

The recent IRS admissions about the use of "tea party" or "patriot" labels to flag applications for nonprofit status for additional scrutiny raise serious questions about political bias, and should receive a thorough and independent investigation.

There is rightly a growing call for House and Senate hearings to answer those questions, but any investigations must delve deeper into the bigger problem facing our democracy after the Supreme Court's decision in Citizen United: the dramatic surge in the misuse of nonprofits to hide political spending by billionaires and corporations from American voters, and the lack of any meaningful enforcement response.

Although the IRS must enforce the law impartially, the agency should not abrogate its responsibility to enforce it in the first place. While Common Cause strongly supports an investigation, we are concerned that partisans on both sides will use this tempest to cow the IRS and forestall enforcement of the tax code.

Reported political spending by 501(c)4s – the kind of non-profit groups at the focus of this controversy – surged to $254m in 2012, almost matching spending by political parties ($255m), according to the Center for Responsive Politics, thanks in large part to the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United. The vast majority of that spending – 85% – came from conservative organizations, led by Karl Rove's Crossroads GPS group and Americans for Prosperity, backed by the Koch brothers. Given this disproportionate spending on behalf of conservative candidates at this point in history, most of the groups flagged will logically be conservative organizations, even using impartial criteria.

[NYC_SKP]

1. Yes, they certainly should. And should not have to apologize for investigating.

These groups plainly either ARE or are NOT involved in political advocacy.

If they expect to escape paying taxes then they had better be clean and be willing to prove it without complaint.

[hack89]

2. Just apply the rules equally to both Dems and repukes.

that is all that is required.

President Obama's campaign morphed into Organizing for Action - which is a 501(c)(4). This is not a partisan issue - both sides use 501(c)(4) and the potential for abuse is there for both sides.

[BlueStreak]

3. Is there any evidence that did NOT occur?

I find this instant capitulation by Obama appalling, but not surprising.

It completely misses the point, which is that most of these organizations should NOT get any tax-free status. But Obama is just one of the boys, I guess. Don't rock the boat, you know.

[hack89]

6. It should be easy to show that Dem groups were given the same scrutiny

however, when IRS supervisors send out explicit instructions that call out conservative groups with no mention of liberal groups then there is a problem.

[BlueStreak]

11. In that 2010 batch of 2000+ applications for 501(c)(4), only one was denied tax-free status

and that was a LIBERAL group. This whole thing is nothing but bullshit.

I heard some lawyer for 17 teabagger groups on Diane Rehm this AM complaining that they didn't hear from the IRS for a year after making their application. Welcome to the club pal. When I formed a 501-(c)(3) in 2002, I didn't get my determination letter for 18 months, and that was a very simple, routine, unquestionably charitable application. And then this asshole had the audacity to say that the IRS should hire more agents to take care of his clients faster. WTF? These are the same idiots trying to gash every budget in sight.

[hack89]

12. Did every group get the same level of scrutiny?

that is the question. It should be easy to answer. There are plenty of stories on the internet from conservative groups detailing the extensive and invasive questions they had to answer. I merely want to see that liberal groups were asked the same questions. That's all.

[BlueStreak]

13. I don't know. I would certainly expect not. The scrutiny should be a function of how bogus

the application smells.

I have heard some right-wingers complaining about all the hard questions the IRS asked. Yes, a few of the questions might have been impertinent. And my humble little 501(c)(3) with $4000 turnover a year also attracted some impertinent questions from my determination officer. You just have to work through that, realizing that they are dealing with dozens -- even hundreds of apps at the same time and will tend to be a bit bureaucratic about it.

I haven't seen the first bit of evidence that there was any real bias or agenda here. And don't forget, this was all happening at a time when the head of the IRS was a BUSH appointee.

[hack89]

14. So why a memo directing greater scrutiny of only conservative organizations?

that strikes me as pre-judging. Why not simply say that the potential for abuse for 501(c)(4) is great and therefore all applications require strict scrutiny. That memo needs to be explained.

[BlueStreak]

16. Why did Willie Sutton rob banks?

"That's where the money is."

The overwhelming majority of the bogus, fake grass roots, fake public interest political organizations out there in the 2010 time frame were from the right wing. As we approached the 2012 election, I suppose it started to balance out a little, but the Republicans still outspent the Dems in these dark money operations by a wide margin.

So of course you keep a sharp eye on the place where the most problems are expected. I don't know what is the slightest bit complicated about that.

The IRS rarely audits people who use 1090-EZ. They look for red flags. That's how they have always operated.

[hack89]

18. Yet the IRS inspector general says it was improper

WASHINGTON (AP) — Ineffective management at the Internal Revenue Service allowed agents to improperly target tea party groups for extra scrutiny when they applied for tax exempt status, an internal Treasury Department report said Tuesday.

The agency started targeting groups with “Tea Party,” ”Patriots” or “9/12 Project” in their applications in March 2010. The criteria later evolved to include groups that promoted the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The practice ended in May 2012, according to a timeline in the report. In some cases, the IRS acknowledged, agents inappropriately asked for lists of donors. The agency blamed low-level employees in a Cincinnati, Ohio, office, saying no high-level officials were aware.

But by using improper criteria, the IRS targeted some groups, even though there were no indications that they engaged in significant political activities, the report said. Other non-tea party groups that had significant political activities were not screened, the report said.

“The criteria developed by the Determinations Unit gives the appearance that the IRS is not impartial in conducting its mission,” the report said.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/inspector-general-ineffective-management-at-irs-led-to-targeting.php

It would appear the IRS sees it differently than you.

[BlueStreak]

19. Caving in to the bullies

They are reflecting the game plan Obama set. Before he had any facts, he came out with an apology. Then his worthless AG talked about CRIMINAL charges, yet 5 days later he really can't say what criminal charges might conceivably apply, and is backing off of that.

It is an administration decision to just absorb the blows and hope the GOP moves on to their next manufactured outrage in a few days. It is Obama betting on the short attention span of the US media.

You are correct, they see things differently from me. My view is that you stand up to bullies. Obama prefers rope-a-dope and so that's what they are doing. They didn't consult with me before deciding on that game plan.

[hack89]

20. ok nt

[JaneyVee]

4. I'd be outraged if the IRS DIDN'T investigate anti-tax groups with political ties

[UTUSN]

5. R#2 & K for, yes and abolish the church exemption from taxes!1 n/t

[libodem]

7. Especially groups who hate taxes

And brag about defrauding the government whenever they can. Duh.

[Scuba]

8. Shouldn't EVERY group applying for tax-exempt status be investigated?

[alc]

9. yes they should

but with clear rules that are followed year-after-year, president-after-president. Not with "low level employees" doing what they want or what they think their boss or higher-ups would want.

[kentuck]

10. Unfortunately, the IRS is intimidated a great deal by the right-wing of the Republican Party...

And are being intimidated as we speak.

[brooklynite]

15. All of them, or just the ones we don't like?

I agree that more scrutiny is needed, but it has to be fair and objective.

[Ganja Ninja]

17. The IRS wasn't playing politics in this case.

It's pretty obvious what they were doing was looking for scams.

After Citizens United applications for tax exempt status more than doubled. They feared that scamers were likely to try to exploit the easy marks on the right and scam them out of their money. They reasoned search terms like "Tea Party", "Patriot" & "9/12" would point the way to the most gullible and those who would try to exploit them. That's really what all this was about.