Obama IRS selectively investigates opposition exemption apps

[Robert_S]

I wonder though, perhaps the scrutiny of certain kinds of political groups was justified. I mean that in the same way that a cop might be more wary about the guy with the 420 sticker on his car having weed on him than the one with the bible on the dash.

Um, in this country, having a 420 sticker on your car is absolutely no basis for suspicion of a crime. None. It's an expression of free speech and no half-way smart cop would ever admit to such "profiling" because the case would be thrown out as all the evidence collected after using an expression of free speech as a pretext for a search is "fruit of the poisonous tree" and would be excluded.

Besides, there is nothing remotely unlawful in the use of "Tea Party" or any of the other terms used. It's not like the groups asking for tax-exempt status were named "Islamic Jihad How to Make Pressure-cooker Bombs to Kill Americans" or anything.

This was clearly a politically motivated scheme to suppress opposition to Obama's reelection. And it's criminal.

Wait a second... I thought you weren't supposed to be using those exemptions to try to directly influence elections...

What you're saying is that if there is evidence that stonewalling those applications had a direct effect on the election then that's bad because the IRS was unfairly targeting non-partisan political groups?

Sorry. My outrage meter should be kicking in, but my irony meter is working overtime.

[Seth]

I wonder though, perhaps the scrutiny of certain kinds of political groups was justified. I mean that in the same way that a cop might be more wary about the guy with the 420 sticker on his car having weed on him than the one with the bible on the dash.

Um, in this country, having a 420 sticker on your car is absolutely no basis for suspicion of a crime. None. It's an expression of free speech and no half-way smart cop would ever admit to such "profiling" because the case would be thrown out as all the evidence collected after using an expression of free speech as a pretext for a search is "fruit of the poisonous tree" and would be excluded.

Besides, there is nothing remotely unlawful in the use of "Tea Party" or any of the other terms used. It's not like the groups asking for tax-exempt status were named "Islamic Jihad How to Make Pressure-cooker Bombs to Kill Americans" or anything.

This was clearly a politically motivated scheme to suppress opposition to Obama's reelection. And it's criminal.

Wait a second... I thought you weren't supposed to be using those exemptions to try to directly influence elections...

What you're saying is that if there is evidence that stonewalling those applications had a direct effect on the election then that's bad because the IRS was unfairly targeting non-partisan political groups?

Sorry. My outrage meter should be kicking in, but my irony meter is working overtime.

Nope. The organizations under scrutiny were 401c4.

What Is a 501c4 Organization?

501c4s are a common type of non-profit organization that can engage in lobbying or political campaigning.
Posted by Estela Kennen on Nov 1, 2006

501(c)4s are tax-exempt non-profit organizations. More specifically, according to the Internal Revenue Code (IRC), 501(c)(4)s are:

“civic leagues or organizations not organized for profit but operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare,
"or local associations of employees, the membership of which is limited to the employees of a designated person or persons in a particular municipality,
"and the net earnings of which are devoted exclusively to charitable, educational, or recreational purposes.”

Comparing 501(c)3s and 501(c)4s

501c3 and 501c4 organizations are very similar in many respects. In fact, any organization that qualifies for a 501c3 tax-exemption would also qualify for a 501c4. There are, however, important differences.

Non-profit status:

Both 501(c)(3)s and 501(c)(4)s must be run as not for profits.
Neither 501(c)(3)s nor 501(c)(4) earnings may benefit a private shareholder or individual.

Tax-exemption:

Both 501c3 and 501c4 organizations are exempt from paying federal income tax. State tax-exemption status varies by state.

Lobbying (trying to affect legislation):

501(c)3s are limited in the amount of time and/or money they can put into lobbying.
501(c)4s can do an unlimited amount of lobbying (but then become ineligible to receive federal monies like grants).

Political campaign activity:

501(c)3s cannot in any way support or oppose anyone running for public office, though they may be involved in political campaigns by way of non-partisan public forums, voter registration drives, etc.
501(c)4s can engage in political campaign activity, so long as this is consistent with the organization’s purpose and is not the organization’s primary activity.

Charitable Donations:

Donations to 501(c)3s are deductible to the full extent of the law.
Donations to 501(c)4s that are public entities (ie, state, local governments, volunteer fire stations) are deductible if they are used for public services. Donations to other 501(c)4s are not deductible.

Should your organization be a 501(c)3 or a 501(c)4?

If you are planning on doing limited or no lobbying and no campaigning, then you probably want the 501(c)3 tax-exemption so that people can benefit from donating to your organization (unless you represent the state or a political subdivision thereof). However, if your organization will be doing substantial lobbying or any campaigning, you should form a 501(c)4.

If you want the best of both worlds, you can have two separate but affiliated organizations – one a charitable 501(c)(3) and the other a 501(c)(4). Many trade organizations lobby extensively on behalf of their members, but have an affiliated 501c3 foundation for charitable giving.

[Coito ergo sum]

I wonder though, perhaps the scrutiny of certain kinds of political groups was justified. I mean that in the same way that a cop might be more wary about the guy with the 420 sticker on his car having weed on him than the one with the bible on the dash.

Um, in this country, having a 420 sticker on your car is absolutely no basis for suspicion of a crime. None. It's an expression of free speech and no half-way smart cop would ever admit to such "profiling" because the case would be thrown out as all the evidence collected after using an expression of free speech as a pretext for a search is "fruit of the poisonous tree" and would be excluded.

Besides, there is nothing remotely unlawful in the use of "Tea Party" or any of the other terms used. It's not like the groups asking for tax-exempt status were named "Islamic Jihad How to Make Pressure-cooker Bombs to Kill Americans" or anything.

This was clearly a politically motivated scheme to suppress opposition to Obama's reelection. And it's criminal.

Wait a second... I thought you weren't supposed to be using those exemptions to try to directly influence elections...

Not correct. 501(c)(4) organizations are permitted to lobby on issues and also lobby for and support individual candidates. 501(c)(3) organizations are a little more restricted, but can still push political issues.

What you're saying is that if there is evidence that stonewalling those applications had a direct effect on the election then that's bad because the IRS was unfairly targeting non-partisan political groups?

If the IRS targets groups because of their political positions, that is a crime. A very serious crime.

Sorry. My outrage meter should be kicking in, but my irony meter is working overtime.

Probably because you don't understand what these exempt organizations are and are not allowed to do.

[Coito ergo sum]

Follow the promotions -- http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/20 ... re-office/

Rogue IRS officers....

[Coito ergo sum]

Senior Democratic Sen. Max Baucus, who recently slapped Obamacare as a "train wreck," believes that the IRS scandal is just beginning and that "a lot more" damaging information will be revealed, likely at congressional hearings.

"I have a hunch that a lot more is going to come out, frankly," Baucus, whose pending retirement seems to have freed him up to speak bluntly, told Bloomberg's "Capitol Gains" TV show.

"It's broader than the current focus. And I think it's important that we have the hearings, and I think that will encourage other information to come out that has not yet come out. I suspect that we will learn more in the next several days, maybe the next couple three weeks which adds more context to all of this," added Baucus, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee.

Sign Up for the Paul Bedard newsletter!
But a House leader, Ways and Means Chairman Dave Camp, said the scandal hasn't reached the level where a special prosecutor is warranted.

"I don't think we're [at the point of appointing a special counsel]. At least I'm not there yet," Camp told the show. "We need to know how and why and certainly try to restore the faith that's been broken and the trust that's been broken as people have been targeted for their political beliefs, which is completely unacceptable."

http://washingtonexaminer.com/democrat- ... le/2529913

Restore faith in the Internal Revenue Service? Really? He thinks the American people had "faith" in the IRS before? Gimme a feckin' break, for fuck's sake... The IRS just proved that the lack of trust in the IRS that most people had was only unjustified in its underestimation of the gravity of the agency's evil.

[Coito ergo sum]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 47792.html

We are in the midst of the worst Washington scandal since Watergate. The reputation of the Obama White House has, among conservatives, gone from sketchy to sinister, and, among liberals, from unsatisfying to dangerous. No one likes what they're seeing. The Justice Department assault on the Associated Press and the ugly politicization of the Internal Revenue Service have left the administration's credibility deeply, probably irretrievably damaged. They don't look jerky now, they look dirty. The patina of high-mindedness the president enjoyed is gone.

[Coito ergo sum]

Conservative Hispanic Groups Targeted In IRS Scandal http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politi ... ive-group/

[Animavore]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 47792.html

We are in the midst of the worst Washington scandal since Watergate. The reputation of the Obama White House has, among conservatives, gone from sketchy to sinister, and, among liberals, from unsatisfying to dangerous. No one likes what they're seeing. The Justice Department assault on the Associated Press and the ugly politicization of the Internal Revenue Service have left the administration's credibility deeply, probably irretrievably damaged. They don't look jerky now, they look dirty. The patina of high-mindedness the president enjoyed is gone.

Hyperbole much?

This whole thing isn't even news over here.

[Coito ergo sum]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 47792.html

We are in the midst of the worst Washington scandal since Watergate. The reputation of the Obama White House has, among conservatives, gone from sketchy to sinister, and, among liberals, from unsatisfying to dangerous. No one likes what they're seeing. The Justice Department assault on the Associated Press and the ugly politicization of the Internal Revenue Service have left the administration's credibility deeply, probably irretrievably damaged. They don't look jerky now, they look dirty. The patina of high-mindedness the president enjoyed is gone.

Hyperbole much?

This whole thing isn't even news over here.

Oh, well, sure - since it isn't news over there, it must not be news. Of course, the best news on the most important and timely American issues is published in Ireland. What was I thinking?

[Animavore]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 47792.html

We are in the midst of the worst Washington scandal since Watergate. The reputation of the Obama White House has, among conservatives, gone from sketchy to sinister, and, among liberals, from unsatisfying to dangerous. No one likes what they're seeing. The Justice Department assault on the Associated Press and the ugly politicization of the Internal Revenue Service have left the administration's credibility deeply, probably irretrievably damaged. They don't look jerky now, they look dirty. The patina of high-mindedness the president enjoyed is gone.

Hyperbole much?

This whole thing isn't even news over here.

Oh, well, sure - since it isn't news over there, it must not be news. Of course, the best news on the most important and timely American issues is published in Ireland. What was I thinking?

I didn't say it wasn't news. Just that it obviously wasn't deemed big enough news to be of interest. So to compare it to a scandal that did make World News, ie. the Watergate Scandal, seems weaksauce.

ANyway. I believe Obama when he says he didn't know anything. How could you not trust that face?

[Coito ergo sum]

I didn't say it wasn't news. Just that it obviously wasn't deemed big enough news to be of interest. So to compare it to a scandal that did make World News, ie. the Watergate Scandal, seems weaksauce.

ANyway. I believe Obama when he says he didn't know anything. How could you not trust that face?

Watergate did not initially make worldwide news either. It started slow.

Yes, Obama only finds out things that occur in his administration from the news, just like you and me. That's the sign of a great executive.

[Animavore]

I didn't say it wasn't news. Just that it obviously wasn't deemed big enough news to be of interest. So to compare it to a scandal that did make World News, ie. the Watergate Scandal, seems weaksauce.

ANyway. I believe Obama when he says he didn't know anything. How could you not trust that face?

Watergate did not initially make worldwide news either. It started slow.

Yes, Obama only finds out things that occur in his administration from the news, just like you and me. That's the sign of a great executive.

Well yes. If and when this all blows up I'm sure it will make World News. But until then it can hardly be considered a "Watergate Scandal".
Sorry for any confusion, I could've wrote that better, but it's what I was driving at.

[Coito ergo sum]

WASHINGTON -- The scandal at the Internal Revenue Service goes far beyond the treatment of Tea Party groups and includes larger issues of abuse of power, the chairman of the House's chief tax-writing committee said at an oversight hearing Friday morning.

"With all due respect, this systematic abuse cannot be fixed with just one resignation, or two," said Rep. Dave Camp, R. Mich., who chairs the House Ways and Means Committee. "This is not a personnel problem. This is a problem of the IRS being too large, too intrusive, too abusive."

"It looks like the truth was hidden to the American people just long enough to make it through an election," Camp said.

The top Democrat Rep. Sandy Levin, D-Mich., said he, too, wanted to find out why the IRS targeted conservative groups for extra scrutiny, and that IRS officials responsible should be fired. But he took exception to the injection of campaign politics into the hearing.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/poli ... d/2192911/

[Coito ergo sum]

Report: IRS Deliberately Chose Not to Fess Up to Scandal Before Election
"f this fact came out in September 2012, in the middle of a presidential election? The terrain would have looked very different."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/rep ... 24711.html

The IRS commissioner "has known for at least a year that this was going on," said Myers, "and that this had happened. And did he share any of that information with the White House? But even more importantly, Congress is going to ask him, why did you mislead us for an entire year? Members of Congress were saying conservatives are being targeted. What's going on here? The IRS denied it. Then when -- after these officials are briefed by the IG that this is going on, they don't disclose it. In fact, the commissioner sent a letter to Congress in September on this subject and did not reveal this. Imagine if we -- if you can -- what would have happened if this fact came out in September 2012, in the middle of a presidential election? The terrain would have looked very different."

[Robert_S]

It won't be news until someone starts a "Would it be unethical to rape the IRS?" thread on Rationalia.

Until then, it's a tempest in a teapot.