501(c)4 abuse and the IRS investigation

[Craig234]

I'd argue there are 2 scandals:

- PACs for both parties being able to pretend to be charities to hide their donors

- The cover up of the mistakes made by the IRS. That is, failing to disclose the problem when it was known, then the planted audience member to ask the leading question to slip out the news when it could no longer be concealed, white house staff coordinating the belated information release to try to minimize the damage.

Yes, it now looks like the lower-level IRS people weren't doing it for partisan reasons, but the cover up did happen, and both IRS and Obama staffers were involved.

I agree with that. I'm not sure the word 'scandal' isn't too strong for the IRS leaders appearing they may have not answered Congress with full accuracy, 'covering up' what wasn't really a scandal to begin with, but it does appear to me they were not very forthcoming with Congress - and that is a problem. Just as when Clapper lied to Sen. Ron Wyden about data collection. Of course, it's also a problem that Republicans in Congress behaved so irresponsibly in hyping and misrepresenting iniformation they were given.

I'm ok at this point with the IRS leadership who did not disclose what had happened being disciplined for it.

On the first scandal, I'd just add the inappropriate tax exemptions donors are receiving.

 

[ivwshane]

I have a feeling this is a non story. The fact is no one was denied and the IRS is required to look into every group that requests 501c4 status and it's also their duty to investigate when they learn of people/groups that might be violating the requirements of a 501c4.

In my opinion 501c4 tax status has been abused (by all parties) anyway and should be abolished.

Looks like I was right!

 

[Craig234]

Looks like I was right!

Now, where are the people on the right to condemn Darrel Issa for his lies, as he cherry picked quotes form IRS interviews to paint a phony scandal, refusing to release the fulltranscripts, which would expose the truth - so the leading Democrat released them showing his lies? As usual, silence.

 

[Jaskalas]

Got some updates to share:

Audit confirms IRS targeted conservatives, not liberals...

Targeted 292 Tea Party groups, just 6 progressive groups...

The IRS‘ auditor told Congress this week that it stands by its determination that conservative groups were uniquely singled out for special scrutiny by the tax agency, rebutting Democrats’ contention that liberal groups also were targeted.

IRS audit reaffirms the claim "conservative groups were uniquely singled out".

 

[ivwshane]

Got some updates to share:

Audit confirms IRS targeted conservatives, not liberals...

Targeted 292 Tea Party groups, just 6 progressive groups...



IRS audit reaffirms the claim "conservative groups were uniquely singled out".

Yes we understand that as that was already admitted since the beginning of this "scandal". What didn't happen and what the auditor didn't address was that there was a political motive behind it and that it was in any way, shape, or form connected to the white house.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

How can he confirm conservative groups were uniquely singled out when progressive groups were omitted from his report because they were beyond what he was tasked with? He's making a comparison to something he didn't investigate.

 

[Fern]

How can he confirm conservative groups were uniquely singled out when progressive groups were omitted from his report because they were beyond what he was tasked with? He's making a comparison to something he didn't investigate.

IIRC the IG did look at both conservative and liberal groups in his 'investigation'. IIRC, conservative groups were audited at a rate of 100% while liberal groups were at 30%.

Even so, that's a bit of a different topic. The IG was looking at a new and separate audit program. A parallel program in addition to the long existing (regular) one. A special team was established for this new program. If the IG omitted the fact that this special team also included targeting liberal groups that's a problem. If there were two special teams assembled for a new audit program, one for conservatives and one for liberals and the IG failed to mention that is a problem. But that seems unlikely to me.

In any case the IRS was asked quite some time ago to assemble a list of the groups who were selected for this new program. If they would just produce the damn list a lot of this would be cleared up.

Fern

 

[Bowfinger]

Got some updates to share:

Audit confirms IRS targeted conservatives, not liberals...

Targeted 292 Tea Party groups, just 6 progressive groups...



IRS audit reaffirms the claim "conservative groups were uniquely singled out".

Your second link is factually wrong, and grossly so. The author made a bad assumption, something he could have easily avoided had he done even minimal research into the IG's findings. The author assumed all 298 of the targeted groups were selected via the partisan keyword matching, and that if six were progressive, the rest must be Tea Party. False. The IG explains in the report that only about one-third of the selected groups contained the targeted phrases like "Tea Party", while the rest were picked using other criteria. The IG still declines to characterize the political ideology breakdown of the other ~200 groups, stating that would be inappropriate in his non-partisan role.

 

[Bowfinger]

IIRC the IG did look at both conservative and liberal groups in his 'investigation'. IIRC, conservative groups were audited at a rate of 100% while liberal groups were at 30%.

I don't believe that ratio is supported by any evidence shown so far. The IG said only that 30% of groups whose names included "Progressive" or "Progress" were selected for additional screening. He's made no comments whatsoever about the broader topic of liberal groups.

By the way, I don't believe "audited" is the correct word in these cases. They were selected for more in-depth review before approving their applications.

[ ... ]
In any case the IRS was asked quite some time ago to assemble a list of the groups who were selected for this new program. If they would just produce the damn list a lot of this would be cleared up.

Fern

Agreed. While the IG may not want to offer subjective assessments about ideology, there are countless others who are ready and willing. That's the biggest piece of this puzzle still missing, I think.