A question on about the IRS targeting Teabagger groups....

[Yooperman]

How many were targeted and how many were denied exempt status?

Just wondering... it's one thing to look into these groups but were they "unjustly" denied tax exempt status is another thing.

YM

[blm]

1. 300 groups were flagged for additional scrutiny and 70 decided to whine about that to congress

and guess which ones? 70 Tea Party groups are WHINING about the process that 230 other groups endured without whining.

Only the GOP and Tea Party and a cowed, lazy corporate media can spin 70 out of 300 into 'Tea Party was SINGLED OUT' based on that report from the Inspector General.

[Dawson Leery]

9. Perhaps these tea party groups were involved in promoting political candidates for public office.

[SlimJimmy]

31. Your numbers are not correct. See my post explaining the real numbers in this thread.

[kentuck]

2. None have been denied up to this point.

including Karl Rove's American Crossroads.

So far, 78 have been approved out of 298 is what I have read.

The TB'ers say they were unfairly questioned in order to get their exemption.

[SlimJimmy]

4. Do you think it's fair that some of those 78 had to wait up to three years for approval?

Delay of status is defacto denial in my opinion. According to Congressional testimony so far, the average approval/denial time prior to the "targeting" was about six months. Even the Democrats on the oversight committee have serious issues with this. The argument that under staffing was the issue is mute since the office handling these requests asked for guidance from DC and had to wait more than a year to get it. In the mean time, all "flagged" requests were put in a holding pattern, while all other group requests were processed as normal. That, on its face, is just wrong. I think we all can agree on that.

I also have serious issues with how the IRS handled these cases, and will speak out about it now before progressives groups are targeted the next go around.

[EC]

6. They didn't need the approval

to be tax exempt so the waiting is moot. But yeah, if you cut payroll enough you can't afford to have the needed staff ... like all the other departments that repubs have insisted on demolishing by cutting resources, then you're going to have to wait.


Not enough people to do the work does make a difference.

[SlimJimmy]

7. You points are well taken. But I would submit that putting them on hold for over a year had

quite an impact as well. The other issue, which I didn't address in my response, was the fact the IRS also demanded member and donor lists from these groups. In my mind, that is a clear violation of the principle of free association.

I'm old enough to remember the mess that Nixon was involved in. The Pentagon papers and his attempt to go after the press instead of the leakers, as well as his use of the IRS to target his enemies. This is not the same, but similar enough to give me pause. We really don't want to go down that road again.

[EC]

12. I'm old enough too

and what Nixon did is not this. Obama has had nothing to do with this. This is all the AG.

[SlimJimmy]

13. I wasn't saying that Pres. Obama did this. I was saying that anything that smacks of these

abuses gives me pause. These allegations should not be dismissed too lightly. And I have to admit that I have seen some of that here on DU.

[EC]

14. I'm not dismissing

but it seems a bit convenent...I'm thinking set up more than anything.

[SlimJimmy]

17. My apologies. I wasn't implying you, but other posts I've seen here since the story broke.

[blm]

23. Progressive groups went through it, too. Why buy the 'singled out' lie?

In fact, the group that ended up being DENIED unfairly was a progressive group while NONE of the Tea party groups acting far more politically were denied. There was something strange going on but not what you are claiming.

BTW - do YOU use key words to shorten your searches? I do.

[kentuck]

24. I think the legality is more important than the wait.

And realistically speaking, since Karl Rove's American Crossroads was already operating as the main money launderer for the wealthy, the IRS, run by Republicans, could care less about these small triangle-hatted, flag-waving, paranoids waiting for approval to do something that was obviously wrong.

[monmouth3]

3. Yet "TaxedEnoughAlready" doesn't serve as a clue...Yikes!..n/t

[Glorfindel]

5. None of this makes any sense to me. Isn't that PRECISELY what the IRS is supposed to do?

Verify that groups are entitled to tax-exempt status? I'm sure that if a group named "Let's Build American Marxism!" or "Anarchy, Death, and Music Appreciation" applied for tax exemption, the IRS would subject that group to a few extra questions. Tempest in a teapot. Much ado about nothing.

[SlimJimmy]

8. The problem is that they only went after groups with "tea party" or "patriot" in their name.

That's the issue. If they had flagged all questionable groups, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

[bushisanidiot]

11. Lookks to me they were "targetted" in order to be approved.

no tea party or "patriot" groups were denied the status they were seeking from
BUSH APPOINTEE led IRS. Only liberal leaning groups were denied.

SURPRISE SURPRISE SURPRISE

[SlimJimmy]

15. Then why weren't so-called progressive groups "targeted"? That's what's at issue here, and is what

put the IRS in the position they find themselves. I guess I just have to keep repeating that many of these groups had to wait up to three years in order to get that approval. That inaction had a deleterious effect on their organization and fundraising efforts. I suspect that if progressive groups had been treated in the same manner, all of DU would be screaming about it. But since it's a rethug group, no biggie. Well, to me, any special treatment from the IRS in opposition to fair treatment for all is wrong and should be called out.

[blm]

19. Baloney - 70 out of 300 does not equal 'singled out'.

.

[SlimJimmy]

20. Did you read the IG report? If not, I highly suggest you do.

It does not agree with your assessment.

[blm]

25. Did you read it? ONLY a progressive group was SINGLED OUT and denied.

Tea Party groups were ALL passed. Now THAT should raise your eyebrows higher.

[bushisanidiot]

22. Are you suggesting that those Tea Party groups who didn't instantly get their tax exempt status

approved ended up VOLUNTARILY paying the IRS taxes for all of the money they brought in by anonymous
donors? Because, unless they actually DID pay taxes on the WINDFALL of money they took in from
the Koch's, etc, they have no complaint and weren't prevented from doing a damn thing with their
fake little "social welfare programs" that had no business EVER being approved as TAX EXEMPT!!!

[SlimJimmy]

30. Under IRS rules, if they were not approved they would have been subject to taxation of any

funds they had received during the period of their application. Some of the groups (28) removed themselves from consideration after lengthy (2-3 year) delays, and the possibility that they would be denied exempt status.

[blm]

16. That's NOT true - 300 groups were flagged for closer scrutiny. 230 didn't whine about it

and the 70 Tea Party groups that were flagged whined about it and received special attention from GOP congressmen who pushed for the inquiry.

Please show me the math that is used to conclude that 70 out of 300 = singled out.

The Tea Party was singled out by GOP congress for special treatment for their whining.

[SlimJimmy]

18. Very much true. When a list (BOLO) is used to separate out groups that contain a key word, then

that is absolutely targeting. Feel free to read the IG report (I have). The targeting did occur and it was directed at specific groups. If you have an issue with that assessment, feel free to take it up with the IG and the President.

[blm]

21. The IG flagged 300 groups. 70 of those were Tea, patriot groups. It's baloney to claim 'singled out'

for closer scrutiny when 70 out of 300 flagged for closer scrutiny is your math.

[SlimJimmy]

28. Since you seem to be stuck on these numbers, let's actually take some data from the report.

First, there were 72 groups identified with tea party in their name, 13 with patriot in their name and 11 with 912 in their name. All 96 of which were referred to the Determinations Unit.

Secondly, once the IRS Determinations Unit had expanded their definition of Potential Political Cases, many more groups were added for review. It would be safe to presume that because the criteria then included such things as:

Being against government spending,
Being against increased government debt or taxes
Education of the public by advocacy
Lobbying to “make America a better place to live"
Statement in the case file criticizing how the country is being run

While some progressive groups might have been caught by this flagging, I think it's fair to say that the vast majority of the remaining 202 cases would have been conservative or libertarian groups. So I really don't want to hear about how the number is so low. A simple review of the report shows the true picture.

[blm]

33. Show me the MATH that proves they were the only groups 'singled out'

and, by the way - MANY groups have jumped through these exact same hoops for years. These whiners shouldn't have even applied while all their political rallies were getting wall to wall coverage from all the news channels.

NOT political groups, my ass. Their applications should have been denied immediately, not passed through - and THAT is the real scandal.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0106/Sarah-Palin-will-headline-first-ever-Tea-Party-Convention

Sarah Palin will head first ever Tea Party Convention

Almost 1-1/2 years since she shook up American politics with her acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention, former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin is set to headline another landmark political event: the first-ever Tea Party Convention next month in Nashville, Tenn.

On its face, the gig would seem a step down for Ms. Palin, one of conservative America’s most popular and polarizing figures (not to mention major thorn in the side of the Obama White House).

But with an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll ranking a generic “Tea Party” as more popular than either Democrats or Republicans, and Palin herself rivaling the charming Mr. Obama in poll popularity, many experts see the Tea Party event as a potential milestone for a mounting, even transformational, force in US politics.

“[W]ith two wars, a continuing terror threat, huge federal deficits, and a major healthcare overhaul in the works, there is no shortage of disaffection out there … and that could prove to be political dynamite,” writes the Washington Post’s Howard Kurtz. Against that backdrop, writes Mr. Kurtz, “The tea types can either blossom into a Perotista-style third-party movement or be subsumed to some degree by the GOP.”

Can the Tea Party movement unify itself?

Indeed, the Nashville event is not about chartering a new political party to represent conservative ideals like low taxes and states’ rights, but more about unifying to take on “Obama, Pelosi and Reid this year,” writes Judson Phillips, head of Tea Party Nation, one of many Tea Party groups and the lead sponsor of a convention that will feature conservative firebrands such as Rep. Michele Bachmann (R) of Minnesota.
>>>>>

[SlimJimmy]

34. The math speaks for itself and the report makes it clear that they were singled out.

Last edited Thu May 23, 2013, 10:20 AM - Edit history (1)

[blm]

35. Over 200 other groups also flagged for added scrutiny, there is no 'singled out' argument

that can be made. In fact, almost every group that's received added scrutiny over the last few decades has claimed a process similar to that of Tea Party groups, but, they sure didn't whine about it to congress.

And Tea Party groups have been the most political groups this nation has seen in decades, so, the SCANDAL here is that Bush-appointees Shulman and Lerner let them pass instead of denying tax exempt as they should have.

[SlimJimmy]

38. You really didn't read the report *or* my response, did you? The 200 other groups were flagged

using the *additional* criteria in the report. A fair reading of that criteria would show that the vast majority of those groups were either conservative or libertarian. These 200 other groups you keep referring to are in the report and identified as *other* because they didn't use the original criteria to flag them, they used the expanded criteria, and *only* the expanded criteria. These isn't some big jumble of groups who happened to apply and got caught in the 200 figure. Over 3000 groups applied for status between 2010-2012, about 300 of them were flagged for extra scrutiny. Of those, either the original flagging terms (tea party, patriot or 912) or the expanded flagging terms I outlined in my original reply were used to separate them from all other applications. How many times do I have to explain this to you before you get it?

[blm]

40. Not ALL were - YOU don't get it because you don't want to. The IG was given the task

of looking into what happened with the groups complaining to their congressmen. Those were Tea Party, patriot groups. The greater number of applicants not getting ANY attention for the scrutiny given didn't complain.

There were left groups, too, and THEY were the ones treated unfairly, not Tea Party groups who were all passed through eventually UNFAIRLY.

[SlimJimmy]

44. I've tried to get you to understand. It's very clear to me that you either

didn't read the report or you have deliberately refused to look at the data. I've explained the numbers sveral times and in a pretty good bit of detail. Either way, there's nothing I can say that will change your view that a bunch of progressive groups were also included. The fact is, they weren't, and any fair viewing of the report clearly shows that.

[maidensandiego]

27. Who Cares ??????

Stop MAKING Excuses. Why don't you ask DARRELL "The ASS" Issa and NOT the POTUS !

The IRS did ...."EXACTLY".... what they should've done. Had there been an influx of Black Panther Groups filing...Che Guevarra Groups filing...or even the Organizations of Asian American Descents filing..... I hardly DOUBT... there would be any QUESTION as to why their apps were targeted and held up. Its disgusting that these Same people running around wanting an answer for this...are the same Hypocrites who sit by the mailbox , biting their nails, waiting for their Refunds every year. None of these Tea-Bagger Crowds look to be raking in ALL the millions...these HATEFUL ORGANIZATIONS they run around hootin & hollerin about...RAKE and TAKE in ! Just dumb as all Rocks !!!

[SlimJimmy]

29. I'm not making excuses, I'm reciting facts - see my sig line. If you don't like it, I'm sorry,

but I won't be stuck on stupid for my political party.

[blm]

36. Baloney - you twist some of the facts to fit the GOP narrative you prefer.

And ignore the facts that prove the narrative to be wrong.

[SlimJimmy]

39. If you are too lazy to actually read the report (of which I'm quoting) then I can't help you.

And if you are referring to the 202 other groups, I've explained that numerous times using facts and data. That you refuse to acknowledge that is really interesting.

[blm]

41. The ONLY scandal is that they should've been DENIED quickly, not passed slowly.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0106/Sarah-Palin-will-headline-first-ever-Tea-Party-Convention

Sarah Palin will head first ever Tea Party Convention

Almost 1-1/2 years since she shook up American politics with her acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention, former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin is set to headline another landmark political event: the first-ever Tea Party Convention next month in Nashville, Tenn.
>
But with an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll ranking a generic “Tea Party” as more popular than either Democrats or Republicans, and Palin herself rivaling the charming Mr. Obama in poll popularity, many experts see the Tea Party event as a potential milestone for a mounting, even transformational, force in US politics.

“ith two wars, a continuing terror threat, huge federal deficits, and a major healthcare overhaul in the works, there is no shortage of disaffection out there … and that could prove to be political dynamite,” writes the Washington Post’s Howard Kurtz. Against that backdrop, writes Mr. Kurtz, “The tea types can either blossom into a Perotista-style third-party movement or be subsumed to some degree by the GOP.”

Can the Tea Party movement unify itself?

Indeed, the Nashville event is not about chartering a new political party to represent conservative ideals like low taxes and states’ rights, but more about unifying to take on “Obama, Pelosi and Reid this year,” writes Judson Phillips, head of Tea Party Nation, one of many Tea Party groups and the lead sponsor of a convention that will feature conservative firebrands such as Rep. Michele Bachmann (R) of Minnesota.
>>>>>

[SalviaBlue]

43. Exactly! The scandal is that they were not DENIED tax exempt status. nt

[SlimJimmy]

45. I think we need to be careful what we wish for here. Go to the Organizing for America

(OFA) website and see the status of a group WE support (a 501(c)(4) tax exempt organization)

Organizing for America (OFA) is a project of the Democratic National Committee (DNC). The American public first heard about OFA on January 17, 2009, when President Barack Obama announced that the organization would soon open its doors for business. Two months later, in mid-March, OFA was officially launched.

Basing its operations on the third floor of the DNC's Capitol Hill headquarters, OFA consists of a vast network of volunteers whose mission is to “let their friends and neighbors know about the President's plan to invest in America's future, improve health care and education, create green jobs, reduce our dependence on foreign oil and cut the deficit in half over the next four years.”

A New York Times report describes OFA as “an army of [Obama] supporters talking, sending e-mail and texting to friends and neighbors as they try to mold public opinion.”

OFA is an outgrowth of “Obama For America,” the network of Obama supporters who went door-to-door urging voters to back the Illinois senator in the 2008 presidential race. Shortly after election day in November of that year, Obama For America’s organizers met in Chicago and voiced their desire to keep their operation active in some form, even though the presidential campaign was over. Their wishes were subsequently echoed by Obama For America’s enthusiastic foot soldiers, who in December 2008 held some 4,800 house meetings nationwide to rally support for such a venture. Moreover, 500,000 Obama supporters completed a survey wherein they, too, expressed a wish to continue their organization’s work. Out of those roots, OFA was formed.

Another factor that motivated the Obama administration to create OFA was the fact that after the new President had taken his oath of office, his White House was, by law, barred from using (for subsequent political purposes) the 13-million-name e-mail list of supporters it had compiled during the 2008 presidential race. Thus the administration established OFA within the structure of the Democratic Party, which was not bound by such restrictions; OFA is free to use the aforementioned list as it pleases. Nor is OFA subject to IRS nonprofit regulations, because it has no independent legal status outside the DNC.

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/printgroupProfile.asp?grpid=7465

[YarnAddict]

10. Problems included

bogging the organizations down in MASSIVE layers of red tape and multiple invasive and unreasonable questions and requests - every Facebook post, a report on every book read in one woman's book club, the content of the prayers of group members, etc.

in my capacity as treasurer of our local Humane Society, I have dealt with the Cincinnati office of the IRS. Getting a problem resolved is nearly impossible. I will call, explain what has happened, and think things are OK, and then I get another letter, claiming that I ignored the last one! This has happened repeatedly. It is frustrating, to say the least, and since the IRS has admitted that they targetted specific organizations for "extra" scrutiny, I imagine that they pulled out all the stops.

I don't like that the IRS has done this, I think it's wrong, regardless of who they targetted, and I can sympathize with the people who had to deal with it.

[maidensandiego]

26. No Fred Sanford. Who's REALLY !....the Big Dummies ???

The IRS did ...."EXACTLY".... what they should've done. Had there been an influx of Black Panther Groups filing...Che Guevarra Groups filing...or even the Organizations of Asian American Descents filing..... I hardly DOUBT... there would be any QUESTION as to why their apps were targeted and held up. Its disgusting that these Same people running around wanting an answer for this...are the same Hypocrites who sit by the mailbox , biting their nails, waiting for their Refunds every year. None of these Tea-Bagger Crowds look to be raking in ALL the millions...these HATEFUL ORGANIZATIONS they run around hootin & hollerin about...RAKE and TAKE in ! Just dumb as all Rocks !!!

[Celldweller]

32. probably doesn't matter if it's 1 or 10000

if they used political affiliation to preference investigation.... that's wrong.

Remember... this could just as easily be IRS harassment on progressive organizations.

[blm]

37. Progressive organizations WERE flagged, but, didn't whine about it - they're used to it.

Tea Party whines are getting special treatment from Congress who are mischaracterizing the scrutiny as 'targeting' and that should be the real scandal.

[moondust]

42. No big deal.

I think they were just trying to save time by pulling up names that obviously sounded like they could be political groups. "Targeting" is the wrong word; the right loves to fake victimhood in trying to gain sympathy and advantage.