IRS confesses to inappropriately targeting conservative groups.

[HomerJS]

People at the IRS are going to jail. Including the director.

I doubt this is jailable. Didn't do anything illegal just unfair. Besides all the groups got their apps approved.

 

[PokerGuy]

I doubt this is jailable. Didn't do anything illegal just unfair.

Boehner said it best: "My question isn't about who's going to resign -- my question is who is going to jail over this scandal?"

Heads should roll and people should go to jail over this.

Besides all the groups got their apps approved.

Several people have brought this up as if it's some sort of defense. The fact that the apps ultimately got approved is completely irrelevant. The groups were treated differently, got additional scrutiny, had to provide additional information, in some cases had to pay legal fees, and in some cases endured delays. All of things are wrong, regardless of whether the apps were ultimately approved or not.

 

[piasabird]

Start filing civil rights lawsuits now!

 

[piasabird]

The extra questionaires they wanted filled out, what did they do with that info. That constitutes spying. It was a fishing expedition. They wanted information about their enemies.

 

[monovillage]

Democrats using the IRS to punish their political enemies?

They quickly sensed the political toxicity associated with Friday's admission by the IRS that they selectively targeted conservative organizations for special government scrutiny, and so Democrats didn't waste any time springing into action. Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus of Montana, for example, vowed congressional hearings and called the IRS actions "an outrageous abuse of power and a breach of the public's trust."

He was joined by a chorus of other Democrats including Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire who called it "completely unacceptable," Kay Hagan of North Carolina who called it "disturbing and troubling," and Mark Pryor of Arkansas who tweeted that he's "working to get to bottom of this so we can fire those responsible & ensure this never happens again."
Fortunately, voters won't need to look very far.The willful ignorance and revisionist history demonstrated by Senate Democrats on this issue has been breathtaking, even by Washington standards.Over the last three years, Democratic senators repeatedly and publicly pressured the IRS to engage in the very activities that they are only now condemning today. At the same time, Republicans repeatedly and publicly warned against this abuse of government power and pointed to a series of red flags that strongly suggested conservative political organizations were being targeted by the IRS. Those warnings were deliberately ignored by the Obama administration and Democratic leaders in Congress.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs...-irs-tea-party-snooping-before-criticizing-it

 

[PokerGuy]

Democrats using the IRS to punish their political enemies?

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs...-irs-tea-party-snooping-before-criticizing-it

Whadaya know, pretty much exactly like when people were warning about the impending implosion freddie mac and fannie mae and that scum Frank and his ilk busily denied it all.

Now the rats see the impending storm and are trying to distance themselves from the mess they created.

 

[Atreus21]

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/the-irs-wants-you-to-share-everything-91378.html

The Internal Revenue Service asked tea party groups to see donor rolls.

It asked for printouts of Facebook posts.

And it asked what books people were reading.

A POLITICO review of documents from 11 tea party and conservative groups that the IRS scrutinized in 2012 shows the agency wanted to know everything — in some cases, it even seemed curious what members were thinking. The review included interviews with groups or their representatives from Hawaii, New Mexico, Ohio, Texas and elsewhere.

The long-awaited Treasury Department inspector general report released Tuesday says the agency itself decided some of its questions to conservative groups were way over the line — especially the one about donors.

The report shows that top IRS officials put a stop to some of the questions in early 2012, including the ones that asked tea party groups who their donors were, what issues were important to them and whether their top officers ever planned to run for office. And they told the investigators they planned to destroy the donor lists that had already been sent in.

But interviews with members of the groups paint a more dramatic picture than the bland language of the report, which just says the IRS “requested irrelevant (unnecessary) information because of a lack of managerial review, at all levels, of questions before they were sent to organizations seeking tax-exempt status.”

“They were asking for a U-Haul truck’s worth of information,” said Toby Marie Walker, the president of the Waco Tea Party.

Some groups even gave up in the face of the IRS questions.

Several of the groups were asked for résumés of top officers and descriptions of interviews with the media. One group was asked to provide “minutes of all board meetings since your creation.”

Some of the letters asked for copies of the groups’ Web pages, blog posts and social media postings — making some tea party members worry they’d be punished for their tweets or Facebook comments by their followers.

And each letter had a stern warning about “penalties of perjury” — which became intimidating for groups that were being asked about future activities, like future donations or endorsements.

In one instance, the American Patriots Against Government Excess was asked to provide summaries or copies of all material passed out at meetings. The group had been reading “The 5000 Year Leap” by Cleon Skousen and the U.S. Constitution.

The group’s president, Marion Bower, sent a copy of both to the IRS. “I don’t have time to write a book report for them,” she said.

The Albuquerque Tea Party was asked about connections to other groups — Conspiracy Brews, Marianne Chiffelle’s Breakfasts, Concerned Citizens for Limited Government, Concerned Citizens for Common Sense.

The Hawaii Tea Party was about Dylan Nonaka, the former head of the Hawaii Republican Party.

This is page 1 of 3.

Good heavens.

 

[Bowfinger]

Democrats using the IRS to punish their political enemies?

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs...-irs-tea-party-snooping-before-criticizing-it

You wouldn't be so actively disinformed if you learned the difference between op-eds and actual news. Or, perhaps more accurately, you willfully remain so actively disinformed because you avoid legitimate news and seek out partisan op-eds that reinforce your faith.

Walsh's op-ed is a lie. He repeatedly asserts Democrats pressured the IRS to target the right. That is a lie, however, or at least is not supported by the examples he cites. Instead, these Democrats were pushing the IRS to more aggressively investigate non-profit 501(c)(4) groups that were primarily engaged in political activity, and to impose caps on their political spending. There's not a single damn word suggesting the IRS should focus disproportionately on right-wing groups.

Walsh lied, and you swallowed it because it's what you want to hear.

For example, here's the key part of the NYT article Walsh omitted when smearing Senator Baucus:

Senator Baucus, the Democrat who leads the Finance Committee, asked the I.R.S. last week to conduct a broad review into “major” tax-exempt organizations to determine if any were misusing their tax-exempt status. Tax-exempt groups are banned from engaging in politics as their “primary” activity.

Mr. Baucus said “political campaigns and powerful individuals should not be able to use tax-exempt organizations as political pawns to serve their own special interests.”

Nary a syllable about political ideology.

Similarly, Walsh also smears "seven Senate Democrats" for pushing the IRS to engage is this partisan conduct . Contrary to Walsh's dishonest innuendo, they also did NOT suggest or imply the IRS consider ideology. From their letter:

We write to ask the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) to immediately change the administrative framework for enforcement of the tax code as it applies to groups designated as “social welfare” organizations. These groups receive tax and other advantages under section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code (hereinafter, “IRC” or the “Code”), but some of them also are engaged in a substantial amount of political campaign activity. As you know, we sent a letter last month expressing concerns about the 501(c)(4) issue; an investigation this week by the New York Times has uncovered new, specific problems on how c)4)s conduct business. We wanted to address those new concerns in this letter.

IRS regulations have long maintained that political campaign activity by a 501(c)(4) entity must not be the “primary purpose” of the organization. These regulations are intended to implement the statute, which requires that such organizations be operated exclusively for the public welfare. But we think the existing IRS regulations run afoul of the law since they only require social welfare activities to be the 'primary purpose' of a nonprofit when the Code says this must be its 'exclusive' purpose. In recent years, this daylight between the law and the IRS regulations has been exploited by groups devoted chiefly to political election activities who operate behind a facade of charity work.

A related concern, raised in a March 7th New York Times article, concerns whether certain nonprofits may be soliciting corporate contributions that are then treated by the company as a business expense eligible for a tax deduction. The Times wrote: “Under current law, there is little to no way to tell whether contributions are being deducted, especially because many of the most political companies are privately held.” This potential abuse distorts the objectives of vital revenue mechanisms and undermines the faith that we ask citizens to place in their electoral system. ...

Feel free to read the rest of the letter at the link if you dare. It might challenge your partisan persecution complex. Suffice it to say that once again, nary a single syllable suggesting anything about the IRS considering political affiliation in its investigations. They simply pushed the IRS to follow the law for 501 (c)(4) organizations, ensuring that their purpose is not political -- right or left.


So once again, we have the right wing propaganda mill cranking out lies to keep its flock perpetually ignorant and outraged.

 

[Bowfinger]

Whadaya know, pretty much exactly like when people were warning about the impending implosion freddie mac and fannie mae and that scum Frank and his ilk busily denied it all.

Now the rats see the impending storm and are trying to distance themselves from the mess they created.

You should know better than to believe everything you read on the Internet. Especially if Monovillage posts it. You were played again.

 

[Atreus21]

You wouldn't be so actively disinformed if you learned the difference between op-eds and actual news. Or, perhaps more accurately, you willfully remain so actively disinformed because you avoid legitimate news and seek out partisan op-eds that reinforce your faith.

Walsh's op-ed is a lie. He repeatedly asserts Democrats pressured the IRS to target the right. That is a lie, however, or at least is not supported by the examples he cites. Instead, these Democrats were pushing the IRS to more aggressively investigate non-profit 501(c)(4) groups that were primarily engaged in political activity, and to impose caps on their political spending. There's not a single damn word suggesting the IRS should focus disproportionately on right-wing groups.

Walsh lied, and you swallowed it because it's what you want to hear.

For example, here's the key part of the NYT article Walsh omitted when smearing Senator Baucus:
Nary a syllable about political ideology.

Similarly, Walsh also smears "seven Senate Democrats" for pushing the IRS to engage is this partisan conduct . Contrary to Walsh's dishonest innuendo, they also did NOT suggest or imply the IRS consider ideology. From their letter:
Feel free to read the rest of the letter at the link if you dare. It might challenge your partisan persecution complex. Suffice it to say that once again, nary a single syllable suggesting anything about the IRS considering political affiliation in its investigations. They simply pushed the IRS to follow the law for 501 (c)(4) organizations, ensuring that their purpose is not political -- right or left.


So once again, we have the right wing propaganda mill cranking out lies to keep its flock perpetually ignorant and outraged.

...I don't suppose you read the article I linked, did you?

 

[HomerJS]

Boehner said it best: "My question isn't about who's going to resign -- my question is who is going to jail over this scandal?"

Heads should roll and people should go to jail over this.



Several people have brought this up as if it's some sort of defense. The fact that the apps ultimately got approved is completely irrelevant. The groups were treated differently, got additional scrutiny, had to provide additional information, in some cases had to pay legal fees, and in some cases endured delays. All of things are wrong, regardless of whether the apps were ultimately approved or not.

Really? I don't recall Boner calling for jail for any CEOs of financial institution perpetrating fraud and/or causing the economic collapse.

Again, where is the broken law? Since groups got their tax-emempt status where is the harm to them?

Biggest problem is misuse of IRS access/power and this is in no way new to Obama.

 

[HomerJS]

Democrats using the IRS to punish their political enemies?



http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs...-irs-tea-party-snooping-before-criticizing-it

NEWS FLASH! It the job of the IRS to scrutinize apps for 501 C4s. What's not their job is to scrutinize one group over another.

 

[PokerGuy]

You should know better than to believe everything you read on the Internet. Especially if Monovillage posts it. You were played again.

It's funny to see the usual media outlets and others in full spin damage control mode. Baucus (and others like him) didn't come out and say "hey IRS, go after the conservative groups!", but they made it clear that's exactly what they wanted, they wanted the groups to be more closely scrutinized. Now that the chickens are coming home to roost they are quickly trying to distance themselves from it.

 

[Atreus21]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/05/14/irs-tea-party-progressive-groups/2158831/

IRS approved liberal groups while Tea Party in limbo

WASHINGTON -- In February 2010, the Champaign Tea Party in Illinois received approval of its tax-exempt status from the IRS in 90 days, no questions asked.

That was the month before the Internal Revenue Service started singling out Tea Party groups for special treatment. There wouldn't be another Tea Party application approved for 27 months.

In that time, the IRS approved perhaps dozens of applications from similar liberal and progressive groups, a USA TODAY review of IRS data shows.

As applications from conservative groups sat in limbo, groups with liberal-sounding names had their applications approved in as little as nine months. With names including words like "Progress" or "Progressive," the liberal groups applied for the same tax status and were engaged in the same kinds of activities as the conservative groups. They included:

• Bus for Progress, a New Jersey non-profit that uses a red, white and blue bus to "drive the progressive change." According to its website, its mission includes "support (for) progressive politicians with the courage to serve the people's interests and make tough choices." It got an IRS approval as a social welfare group in April 2011.

• Missourians Organizing for Reform and Empowerment says it fights against corporate welfare and for increasing the minimum wage. "It would be fair to say we're on the progressive end of the spectrum," said executive director Jeff Ordower. He said the group got tax-exempt status in September 2011 in just nine months after "a pretty simple, straightforward process."

• Progress Florida, granted tax-exempt status in January 2011, is lobbying the Florida Legislature to expand Medicaid under a provision of the Affordable Care Act, one of President Obama's signature accomplishments. The group did not return phone calls. "We're busy fighting to build a more progressive Florida and cannot take your call right now," the group's voice mail said.

Like the Tea Party groups, the liberal groups sought recognition as social welfare groups under Section 501(c)(4) of the tax code, based on activities like "citizen participation" or "voter education and registration."

In a conference call with reporters last week, the IRS official responsible for granting tax-exempt status said that it was a mistake to subject Tea Party groups to additional scrutiny based solely on the organization's name. But she said ideology played no part in the process.

"The selection of these cases where they used the names was not a partisan selection," said Lois Lerner, director of exempt organizations. She said progressive groups were also selected for greater scrutiny based on their names, but did not provide details. "I don't have them off the top of my head," she said.

The IRS did not respond to follow-up questions Tuesday.

Hmmmm...

Congressional critics say the IRS's actions suggest a political motives: "This administration seems to have a culture of politics above all else," said Rep. Bill Flores, R-Texas. "A lot of the actions they take have a political side first, and put government second."

Flores complained to the IRS last year after the Waco Tea Party's tax-exempt application was mired in red tape. The IRS asked the group for information that was "overreaching and impossible to comply with," Flores said: Transcripts of radio interviews, copies of social media posts and details on "close relationships" with political candidates.

When Flores complained last year -- asking pointed questions about the IRS treatment of Tea Party groups -- the IRS response didn't acknowledge that it had treated conservative groups differently. "They did more than sidestep the issue," he said. "They flipped me the finger."

Before the IRS started separating out Tea Party applications, getting tax-exempt status was routine -- even for conservative groups. The Champaign Tea Party's treasurer, Karen Olsen, said the process was smooth, with no follow-up questions from the IRS.

Olsen, a retired IRS revenue agent, defended the agency.

"If you suddenly see a great increase in some kind of activity, and you don't understand why, then it might be reasonable to look more closely at what's happening with those applications," she said. "I'm not certain that there was an error on the part of the IRS at all. I know that's not a popular opinion."

Some liberal groups did get additional scrutiny, although they still got their tax-exempt status while the Tea Party moratorium was in effect. For the "independent progressive" group Action for a Progressive Future, which runs the Rootsaction.org web site, the tax-exempt process took 18 months and also involved intrusive questions.

Co-founder Jeff Cohen said tax-exempt status is a privilege, so he didn't mind answering the intrusive questions, as long as those questions were consistent and fair.

"From my perspective, if the IRS can hold up legitimate Tea Party applications today and get away with it, then who knows if progressive groups will be held up and specially scrutinized in a few years. It's utterly unacceptable, if that's what happened," he said.

 

[Atreus21]

NEWS FLASH! It the job of the IRS to scrutinize apps for 501 C4s. What's not their job is to scrutinize one group over another.

According to Politico and USAToday so far, that appears to be exactly what happened.

 

[PokerGuy]

Really? I don't recall Boner calling for jail for any CEOs of financial institution perpetrating fraud and/or causing the economic collapse.

I'm sure he supported prosecution of anyone who broke the law there as well. If not, I'm sure you can start a thread on that topic since it has nothing to do with this one.

Again, where is the broken law? Since groups got their tax-emempt status where is the harm to them?

I've already shown the harm. Whether they got their tax exempt status or not is irrelevant, harm clearly already occurred. Further, there are surely groups out there who simply gave up their attempt to establish the tax exempt organization in the face of the abuse of power by the IRS, several have already come forward and indicated it.

Biggest problem is misuse of IRS access/power and this is in no way new to Obama.

That much we agree on, this is not new to obummer.

 

[Atreus21]

Some were asked about any connection to Americans for Prosperity, a nonprofit group backed by the Koch brothers that ironically never underwent the same level of IRS scrutiny.

And then they asked whether one group knew Justin Binik-Thomas.

Never heard of him? He’s a former leader of the Cincinnati Tea Party, and clearly someone in the Cincinnati IRS office knew who he was.

So when the Liberty Township Tea Party applied for tax-exempt status, the IRS threw this question into its March 2011 letter to the group: “Provide details regarding your relationship with Justin Binik-Thomas.” (They didn’t know him well enough to spell his name right.)

In an interview Tuesday, Binik-Thomas said he has never worked with the Liberty group and isn’t sure why the IRS asked that group about him — although he says it’s “possible that they just Googled ‘tea party’ and assumed that we’re all the same.”

But Binik-Thomas said it was a chilling experience when the Liberty group told him his name was in their letter — because now he wonders what else the IRS has in store for him.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/...are-everything-91378_Page2.html#ixzz2TOHKmEmS

Yeesh. An excerpt of page 2 of the politico article above.

 

[kage69]

Not that I approve of this kind of thing, but given the astro-turf nature of some tea-bagist orgs, I suppose it's not a stretch to imagine some IRS people could be suspicious.

Definitely inappropriate, but not exactly criminal. Given all the other inappropriate things to emerge from DC since 2000, it seems kinda tame on the Sleaze-O-Meter (Alberto Gonzales I'm looking at you)

 

[Bowfinger]

It's funny to see the usual media outlets and others in full spin damage control mode. Baucus (and others like him) didn't come out and say "hey IRS, go after the conservative groups!", but they made it clear that's exactly what they wanted, they wanted the groups to be more closely scrutinized. Now that the chickens are coming home to roost they are quickly trying to distance themselves from it.

Do you have anything factual to support your innuendo, or is this just your typical "Here's what I want to be true so I'll pretend it is." BS? I ask because based the actual facts we've seen so far, what they wanted the IRS to do is ensure organizations applying for 501 (c)(4) status were doing so legitimately. There's nothing inherently partisan about that, unless your premise is that right wing groups are more dishonest and corrupt than lefties. Is that what you're saying?

 

[Bowfinger]

...I don't suppose you read the article I linked, did you?

No, because at first glance it appeared to show ways the IRS went too far in investigating these groups. That has nothing to do with my post refuting Monovillage's op-ed. I said from the very beginning that if the allegations of partisan criteria are true, it is absolutely unacceptable and those involved should be fired.

 

[PokerGuy]

I ask because based the actual facts we've seen so far, what they wanted the IRS to do is ensure organizations applying for 501 (c)(4) status were doing so legitimately. There's nothing inherently partisan about that, unless your premise is that right wing groups are more dishonest and corrupt than lefties. Is that what you're saying?

In his letter to the IRS in 2010, Baucus specifically singled out Crossroads GPS, American Action Network, and Americans for Job Security as the kind of groups that merit closer scrutiny (all conservative groups of course). Now he wants to act surprised when the IRS did exactly what he wanted them to, they started to scrutinize conservative groups.

The real indication that the senate is not serious about investigating this either: Baucus, one of the people who pushed for this to happen will now be heading up the senate investigation of this fiasco. Gee, I wonder what conclusions he'll come up with

 

[HomerJS]

It's funny to see the usual media outlets and others in full spin damage control mode. Baucus (and others like him) didn't come out and say "hey IRS, go after the conservative groups!", but they made it clear that's exactly what they wanted, they wanted the groups to be more closely scrutinized. Now that the chickens are coming home to roost they are quickly trying to distance themselves from it.

Don't believe what they said. Believe what I say they actually meant.

How much of a reach are you guys going to do? Like sharks in chum!

 

[PokerGuy]

Don't believe what they said. Believe what I say they actually meant.

How much of a reach are you guys going to do? Like sharks in chum!

See my response to bowfinger in my previous post. Baucus (for example) specifically singled out conservative groups in his letter to the IRS.

 

[HomerJS]

I'm sure he supported prosecution of anyone who broke the law there as well. If not, I'm sure you can start a thread on that topic since it has nothing to do with this one.

I've already shown the harm. Whether they got their tax exempt status or not is irrelevant, harm clearly already occurred. Further, there are surely groups out there who simply gave up their attempt to establish the tax exempt organization in the face of the abuse of power by the IRS, several have already come forward and indicated it.

That much we agree on, this is not new to obummer.

All groups who applied were approved. Again, no harm to them.

 

[HomerJS]

See my response to bowfinger in my previous post. Baucus (for example) specifically singled out conservative groups in his letter to the IRS.

Singled out or gave examples. How many liberal groups were in the flood of apps after Citizens United? In that I think you have your answer.