IRS Apologizes For Targeting Conservative Political Groups In 2012 Ele (1 Viewer)

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Though I'm still not so sure that this partisanship at all. Maybe it was partisanship in how it was responded to (such as the NYT's article), but I think it was just a combination of lazy and picking on those that don't like "you and your profession".

I didn't say "political", I said "partisan".

That the Tea Party groups, in this case, are anathema to the IRS's mission, which may have caused the enforcement to be dictated by politics rather than tax enforcement.

So you are not really sure either.Those dots might exist and ultimately need to be connected, but I think it is premature to say they must be connected. Especially since there is a simpler choice where the partisanship of the groups is coincidental.

And lets repeat, this only applies to the creation of the short cuts. I don't know enough about the official response up the chain as the complaints were happening to form an opinion there on the partisan nature of those. That, along with appropriate oversight is where I expect the investigations to focus.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

That the Tea Party groups, in this case, are anathema to the IRS's mission, which may have caused the enforcement to be dictated by politics rather than tax enforcement.

So anti United States government groups get targeted? Doesn't seem like an out-of-place spot to look for Government non-compliance types.

 

[rockaction]

Though I'm still not so sure that this partisanship at all. Maybe it was partisanship in how it was responded to (such as the NYT's article), but I think it was just a combination of lazy and picking on those that don't like "you and your profession".

I didn't say "political", I said "partisan".

>That the Tea Party groups, in this case, are anathema to the IRS's mission, which may have caused the enforcement to be dictated by politics rather than tax enforcement.

So you are not really sure either.Those dots might exist and ultimately need to be connected, but I think it is premature to say they must be connected. Especially since there is a simpler choice where the partisanship of the groups is coincidental.And lets repeat, this only applies to the creation of the short cuts. I don't know enough about the official response up the chain as the complaints were happening to form an opinion there on the partisan nature of those. That, along with appropriate oversight is where I expect the investigations to focus.

This multi-quote thing stinks.

That said, I was using "political" and "partisan" interchangeably, but knew someone would say something. Fair enough. I believe in this case, the political is partisan.

Also, I was completely sticking to media and other group reactions to the scandal and limiting it to that. I want to see exactly how deep of an investigation they call for, though I suppose the whole "few bad apples" will be a neat way of disposing of it without the stench reaching higher levels of bureaucractic or elected governance. Those were my early posts before the ACLU thing.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

And BS again. From Baldwin's Wiki page: "In 1927, he had visited the Soviet Union and wrote a book, Liberty Under the Soviets. Originally, at the beginning of the ACLU, he had said, "Communism, of course, is the goal."

"communism is the goal" is not the same thing as "was a communist".You do understand that.......don't you?

If somebody lists "communism" as one of his personal or professional goals, it is entirely appropriate to refer to that person as a communist.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I'll just quote this again:

Roger Baldwin, the founder of the American Civil Liberties Union, once said, "I am for socialism, disarmament, and, ultimately, for abolishing the state itself... I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and the sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal."

I'm not hunting down a handbook from the nineties. Pissed off as you may be, if you think about it for a minute, the reason the top libertarian legal intellectual - Randy Barnett - is the biggest expert and advocate on the Ninth Amendment is precisely because of property rights. You're confusing a group with "liberty" in their name with a group that advocates a traditional classic liberal position. The ACLU is not that, hence the debate about them.

And the righties might hate that I have to do this from memory, but any reasonable investigation will probably find more intellectual fidelity on my part than any naysayer.

Nothing in that quote confirms that Baldwin was actually a communist.

How so? If that quote is accurate -- note the "if" -- then Baldwin is plainly delcaring hiself to be a communist and I'm not sure how you can read it any other way. Could you explain how you're interpreting that quote?

I like the ACLU and I don't care if their founder was a communist -- it's clearly not a communist organization today. I just don't understand your line of thinking.

 

[Henry Ford]

Just trying to catchh up, here. Was anyone actually denied 501c4 status who shouldn't have been?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Just trying to catchh up, here. Was anyone actually denied 501c4 status who shouldn't have been?

As far as what I have read, so it mat be outdated the answer is no. There were some applications that were withdrawn and I read that some of these groups are looking to sue to recover what they spent to defend their applications. My question for the lawyers around here is I thought you couldn't sue the "sovereign" for stuff like this. The example of this I was given a long time ago being "an IRS employee gave you wrong information" would irrelevant because while acting in their official duties an IRS employee is only authorized to give out correct information.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

rockaction, on 12 May 2013 - 23:06, said:That said, I was using "political" and "partisan" interchangeably, but knew someone would say something. Fair enough. I believe in this case, the political is partisan. Also, I was completely sticking to media and other group reactions to the scandal and limiting it to that. ...

How is "it is April 15th, Patriots Day, in Boston so the bombings must be right wing extremists" different from "it is the IRS, a democratic executive branch, and conservative groups being target so the "short cuts" must have been motivated by partisan politics".Maybe in a week the difference will be that one statement is still false and the other turns out to be undeniably true, but if it was wrong to jump to the first conclusion how is it OK to jump to the second one. Wasn't one of the links in this thread all about how the IRS jumped to such conclusions is what caused this mess?

 

[timschochet]

Definitely should be investigated further. But, as usual, I suspect this was much more screw up than deliberate with political intent.

 

[Hang 10]

Definitely should be investigated further. But, as usual, I suspect this was much more screw up than deliberate with political intent.

 

[Henry Ford]

Just trying to catchh up, here. Was anyone actually denied 501c4 status who shouldn't have been?

As far as what I have read, so it mat be outdated the answer is no. There were some applications that were withdrawn and I read that some of these groups are looking to sue to recover what they spent to defend their applications. My question for the lawyers around here is I thought you couldn't sue the "sovereign" for stuff like this. The example of this I was given a long time ago being "an IRS employee gave you wrong information" would irrelevant because while acting in their official duties an IRS employee is only authorized to give out correct information.

Yeah, that's not really the reason, but it's pretty tough to sue for attorney's fees against anyone, much less an administrative agency.So this hullabaloo is because people had to defend their applications, and were ultimately successful?

 

[pittstownkiller]

That the Tea Party groups, in this case, are anathema to the IRS's mission, which may have caused the enforcement to be dictated by politics rather than tax enforcement.

So anti United States government groups get targeted? Doesn't seem like an out-of-place spot to look for Government non-compliance types.

I do not think you can make the judgement objectively and it certainly would be profiling. I would also stress with a different administration in office, these groups could very well be deemed pro-government.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Just trying to catchh up, here. Was anyone actually denied 501c4 status who shouldn't have been?

As far as what I have read, so it mat be outdated the answer is no. There were some applications that were withdrawn and I read that some of these groups are looking to sue to recover what they spent to defend their applications. My question for the lawyers around here is I thought you couldn't sue the "sovereign" for stuff like this. The example of this I was given a long time ago being "an IRS employee gave you wrong information" would irrelevant because while acting in their official duties an IRS employee is only authorized to give out correct information.

Yeah, that's not really the reason, but it's pretty tough to sue for attorney's fees against anyone, much less an administrative agency.So this hullabaloo is because people had to defend their applications, and were ultimately successful?

If you are taking this route than the hullabaloo is because these political groups were targeted as being more likely to be "primarily political organizations".

 

[timschochet]

Definitely should be investigated further. But, as usual, I suspect this was much more screw up than deliberate with political intent.

Why is my response so funny? Whenever there is a government scandal, whether thae administration is conservative or liberal, I always begin with the same premise: screw up rather than deliberate. 19 times out of 20 I'm right, because actual conspiracies are extremely rare. But that fact doesn't stop partisans from assuming conspiracy every time.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Definitely should be investigated further. But, as usual, I suspect this was much more screw up than deliberate with political intent.

Why is my response so funny? Whenever there is a government scandal, whether thae administration is conservative or liberal, I always begin with the same premise: screw up rather than deliberate. 19 times out of 20 I'm right, because actual conspiracies are extremely rare. But that fact doesn't stop partisans from assuming conspiracy every time.

I doubt this qualifies as a "conspiracy," but it's really hard to come up with an explanation for why the IRS did what it did without "political bias" being a part of your explanation.

 

[TPW]

Thought of the day...

The same progressives who illegally target and harrass the political opposition for financial audit via the federal government, gloated at the possibility of an untimely death for conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh when he had chest pains in 2009, and see no problem whatsoever with offing tens of millions of American children over the last few decades through abortion; these very same people now are in charge of overseeing our healthcare on a national level using the power of the Internal Revenue Service.

http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-implementation/299241-gingrich-irs-scandal-a-huge-problem-for-obamacare-

Yet, they wonder why we don't trust them. Would you trust a fox to guard your henhouse?

 

[jonessed]

Just trying to catchh up, here. Was anyone actually denied 501c4 status who shouldn't have been?

As far as what I have read, so it mat be outdated the answer is no. There were some applications that were withdrawn and I read that some of these groups are looking to sue to recover what they spent to defend their applications. My question for the lawyers around here is I thought you couldn't sue the "sovereign" for stuff like this. The example of this I was given a long time ago being "an IRS employee gave you wrong information" would irrelevant because while acting in their official duties an IRS employee is only authorized to give out correct information.

Yeah, that's not really the reason, but it's pretty tough to sue for attorney's fees against anyone, much less an administrative agency.So this hullabaloo is because people had to defend their applications, and were ultimately successful?

 

[timschochet]

Definitely should be investigated further. But, as usual, I suspect this was much more screw up than deliberate with political intent.

Why is my response so funny? Whenever there is a government scandal, whether thae administration is conservative or liberal, I always begin with the same premise: screw up rather than deliberate. 19 times out of 20 I'm right, because actual conspiracies are extremely rare. But that fact doesn't stop partisans from assuming conspiracy every time.

I doubt this qualifies as a "conspiracy," but it's really hard to come up with an explanation for why the IRS did what it did without "political bias" being a part of your explanation.

We'll see. I suspect the answer is more benign. But hopefully we'll find out one way or another.

 

[oso diablo]

it strikes me as axiomatic that a larger government would be a more powerful government. And that a more powerful government would act in a more partisan manner. my sense was that fgialc felt otherwise because the political winds are currently blowing his way, and he likely doesn't notice it as much. This story makes an odd place for his sentiment, given that it highlights the stenchy wind. The strawman reference was to his comment about stopping regulation - a frequent canard from the left about the right's political viewpoints.

My comment didn't really have to do with political winds. Back 100 years ago before stuff like the Hatch Act and competitive bidding laws EVERYTHING was partisan. It's still like that in a lot of countries in the world. If you want a civil service job or a government contract or anything, you have to kowtow and pay off the party in power. it isn't like that here anymore. Yeah, there's still corruption and scandals, but the pervasiveness has diminished a lot. I view it as one of the great successes of our governance. And it has happened despite the fact that the federal government has grown a lot since then.

You seemed to imply a causation, which i found dubious. I'm not really sure what the Hatch Act has to do with this IRS scandal, other than perhaps to signify that it hasn't fully worked.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

So this hullabaloo is because people had to defend their applications, and were ultimately successful?

Technically yeah, but that's kind of a dismissive way of putting it. If the IRS was going around auditing people because they were registered Democrats, I would hope we could all agree that that's a bad thing, especially if the taxpayers were ultimately successful in their audits.

 

[Henry Ford]

So this hullabaloo is because people had to defend their applications, and were ultimately successful?

Technically yeah, but that's kind of a dismissive way of putting it. If the IRS was going around auditing people because they were registered Democrats, I would hope we could all agree that that's a bad thing, especially if the taxpayers were ultimately successful in their audits.

As I understand it, and I could very well be wrong here, a primarily political organization isn't supposed to receive 501c4 status. So targeting politically-motivated 501c4 applications seems like a pretty reasonable position, and pretty spectacularly different from auditing Democrats. Though I agree that that left-wing political organizations should also have been targeted. What buzz words should they have used for those?

Edit: I'd say it's more akin to auditing people who try to take a tax writeoff for attending a financial seminar hosted by Wesley Snipes.

 

[Hang 10]

Definitely should be investigated further. But, as usual, I suspect this was much more screw up than deliberate with political intent.

Why is my response so funny? Whenever there is a government scandal, whether thae administration is conservative or liberal, I always begin with the same premise: screw up rather than deliberate. 19 times out of 20 I'm right, because actual conspiracies are extremely rare. But that fact doesn't stop partisans from assuming conspiracy every time.

That's pretty naive if you actually believe that...which I'm sure you probably don't.

 

[Henry Ford]

I guess I just don't understand the incensed reaction, here.

Outrage: "The IRS is targeting our political organizations!"

Response: "Political organizations aren't allowed to have the status these organizations applied for."

Case closed, in my opinion, other than checking to see if a bunch of left-wing apps made it through the process which shouldn't have. That would make me extremely upset.

 

[pittstownkiller]

So this hullabaloo is because people had to defend their applications, and were ultimately successful?

Technically yeah, but that's kind of a dismissive way of putting it. If the IRS was going around auditing people because they were registered Democrats, I would hope we could all agree that that's a bad thing, especially if the taxpayers were ultimately successful in their audits.

As I understand it, and I could very well be wrong here, a primarily political organization isn't supposed to receive 501c4 status. So targeting politically-motivated 501c4 applications seems like a pretty reasonable position, and pretty spectacularly different from auditing Democrats. Though I agree that that left-wing political organizations should also have been targeted. What buzz words should they have used for those?

Do you feel the NRA is primarily political organization; the facts would not justify that belief.

 

[Henry Ford]

So this hullabaloo is because people had to defend their applications, and were ultimately successful?

Technically yeah, but that's kind of a dismissive way of putting it. If the IRS was going around auditing people because they were registered Democrats, I would hope we could all agree that that's a bad thing, especially if the taxpayers were ultimately successful in their audits.

As I understand it, and I could very well be wrong here, a primarily political organization isn't supposed to receive 501c4 status. So targeting politically-motivated 501c4 applications seems like a pretty reasonable position, and pretty spectacularly different from auditing Democrats. Though I agree that that left-wing political organizations should also have been targeted. What buzz words should they have used for those?

Do you feel the NRA is primarily political organization; the facts would not justify that belief.

Was the NRA one of these organizations? I mean, personally, I think the NRA is a political organization, but I also agree that it's entitled to tax-exempt status because of the huge amount of other stuff it does. So yes, I would understand if the NRA were one of the organizations involved that was involved in this why everyone's upset.

 

[pittstownkiller]

I guess I just don't understand the incensed reaction, here. Outrage: "The IRS is targeting our political organizations!" Response: "Political organizations aren't allowed to have the status these organizations applied for." Case closed, in my opinion, other than checking to see if a bunch of left-wing apps made it through the process which shouldn't have. That would make me extremely upset.

If everything is on the up and up, why the public apology by the IRS; to remind everyone the bang up job they are doing?

 

[pittstownkiller]

So this hullabaloo is because people had to defend their applications, and were ultimately successful?

Technically yeah, but that's kind of a dismissive way of putting it. If the IRS was going around auditing people because they were registered Democrats, I would hope we could all agree that that's a bad thing, especially if the taxpayers were ultimately successful in their audits.

As I understand it, and I could very well be wrong here, a primarily political organization isn't supposed to receive 501c4 status. So targeting politically-motivated 501c4 applications seems like a pretty reasonable position, and pretty spectacularly different from auditing Democrats. Though I agree that that left-wing political organizations should also have been targeted. What buzz words should they have used for those?

Do you feel the NRA is primarily political organization; the facts would not justify that belief.

Was the NRA one of these organizations?

I believe so but it may be from previous stories that were cited in the articles I've read.

 

[Henry Ford]

I guess I just don't understand the incensed reaction, here. Outrage: "The IRS is targeting our political organizations!" Response: "Political organizations aren't allowed to have the status these organizations applied for." Case closed, in my opinion, other than checking to see if a bunch of left-wing apps made it through the process which shouldn't have. That would make me extremely upset.

If everything is on the up and up, why the public apology by the IRS; to remind everyone the bang up job they are doing?

That's what I'm asking. Were these actually completely political-motivation-free organizations? And if so, how were they "tea party" or "right wing" organizations being targeted by the IRS?

The apology needs to be if left-leaning organizations don't get the same treatment, but there should absolutely be a list of buzz words that suggest political motivation, based on what the political controversies of the time are.

 

[oso diablo]

I guess I just don't understand the incensed reaction, here.

Outrage: "The IRS is targeting our political organizations!"

Response: "Political organizations aren't allowed to have the status these organizations applied for."

Case closed, in my opinion, other than checking to see if a bunch of left-wing apps made it through the process which shouldn't have. That would make me extremely upset.

because political targeting by the IRS is against the law, and for a good reason. i'm frankly quite surprised that people are defending this. it really stinks.

p.s. nice strawman

 

[pittstownkiller]

I guess I just don't understand the incensed reaction, here. Outrage: "The IRS is targeting our political organizations!" Response: "Political organizations aren't allowed to have the status these organizations applied for." Case closed, in my opinion, other than checking to see if a bunch of left-wing apps made it through the process which shouldn't have. That would make me extremely upset.

If everything is on the up and up, why the public apology by the IRS; to remind everyone the bang up job they are doing?

That's what I'm asking. Were these actually completely political-motivation-free organizations? And if so, how were they "tea party" or "right wing" organizations being targeted by the IRS? The apology needs to be if left-leaning organizations don't get the same treatment, but there should absolutely be a list of buzz words that suggest political motivation, based on what the political controversies of the time are.

You really think "buzzwords" are the best way to investigate this; how about the amount of their revenue they spend on their political arm - information readily available on their returns without an audit.

 

[Henry Ford]

I guess I just don't understand the incensed reaction, here.

Outrage: "The IRS is targeting our political organizations!"

Response: "Political organizations aren't allowed to have the status these organizations applied for."

Case closed, in my opinion, other than checking to see if a bunch of left-wing apps made it through the process which shouldn't have. That would make me extremely upset.

because political targeting by the IRS is against the law, and for a good reason. i'm frankly quite surprised that people are defending this. it really stinks.

p.s. nice strawman

I'm asking questions. If you'll notice, I mentioned that repeatedly in my posts.

I'm not trying to put up a strawman, though by golly gosh I sure love seeing people post that on a message board, I'm asking the question - how are these both political/right wing organizations and unworthy of further scrutiny under the 501c4 process? And if that's not the case, then what's really going on?

 

[Henry Ford]

I guess I just don't understand the incensed reaction, here. Outrage: "The IRS is targeting our political organizations!" Response: "Political organizations aren't allowed to have the status these organizations applied for." Case closed, in my opinion, other than checking to see if a bunch of left-wing apps made it through the process which shouldn't have. That would make me extremely upset.

If everything is on the up and up, why the public apology by the IRS; to remind everyone the bang up job they are doing?

That's what I'm asking. Were these actually completely political-motivation-free organizations? And if so, how were they "tea party" or "right wing" organizations being targeted by the IRS? The apology needs to be if left-leaning organizations don't get the same treatment, but there should absolutely be a list of buzz words that suggest political motivation, based on what the political controversies of the time are.

You really think "buzzwords" are the best way to investigate this; how about the amount of their revenue they spend on their political arm - information readily available on their returns without an audit.

Oh, these organizations had prior-year tax returns with itemized political expenditures? Or they were just starting up and filing for initial 501c4 status?

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

]You really think "buzzwords" are the best way to investigate this; how about the amount of their revenue they spend on their political arm - information readily available on their returns without an audit.

No, it is not easy to judge this from normal returns. That's part of the problem.

 

[Henry Ford]

]You really think "buzzwords" are the best way to investigate this; how about the amount of their revenue they spend on their political arm - information readily available on their returns without an audit.

No, it is not easy to judge this from normal returns. That's part of the problem.

Exactly.

I agree that right-wing organizations shouldn't get different treatment from left-wing organizations. But as soon as you introduce political viewpoint into the company as a basic tenet of its organization, I think it at least should require scrutiny before being granted tax-exempt status of any kind.

 

[pittstownkiller]

I guess I just don't understand the incensed reaction, here. Outrage: "The IRS is targeting our political organizations!" Response: "Political organizations aren't allowed to have the status these organizations applied for." Case closed, in my opinion, other than checking to see if a bunch of left-wing apps made it through the process which shouldn't have. That would make me extremely upset.

because political targeting by the IRS is against the law, and for a good reason. i'm frankly quite surprised that people are defending this. it really stinks. p.s. nice strawman

I'm asking questions. If you'll notice, I mentioned that repeatedly in my posts. I'm not trying to put up a strawman, though by golly gosh I sure love seeing people post that on a message board, I'm asking the question - how are these both political/right wing organizations and unworthy of further scrutiny under the 501c4 process? And if that's not the case, then what's really going on?

I offer up the apology as the evidence and you ask why apologize if they did nothing wrong, without ever questioning why they did in the first place. I know enough about bureaucrats to know they aren't apologizing, unless they are caught doing something they should not have.

 

[Henry Ford]

I guess I just don't understand the incensed reaction, here. Outrage: "The IRS is targeting our political organizations!" Response: "Political organizations aren't allowed to have the status these organizations applied for." Case closed, in my opinion, other than checking to see if a bunch of left-wing apps made it through the process which shouldn't have. That would make me extremely upset.

because political targeting by the IRS is against the law, and for a good reason. i'm frankly quite surprised that people are defending this. it really stinks. p.s. nice strawman

I'm asking questions. If you'll notice, I mentioned that repeatedly in my posts. I'm not trying to put up a strawman, though by golly gosh I sure love seeing people post that on a message board, I'm asking the question - how are these both political/right wing organizations and unworthy of further scrutiny under the 501c4 process? And if that's not the case, then what's really going on?

I offer up the apology as the evidence and you ask why apologize if they did nothing wrong, without ever questioning why they did in the first place. I know enough about bureaucrats to know they aren't apologizing, unless they are caught doing something they should not have.

When did I ask that? I think I clearly said repeatedly that if left-wing organizations were treated differently, that's a problem. I agree that should be apologized for if that's what happened. But I don't think it's wrong to target politically-motivated applications for 501c4 status, no matter which side of the aisle they're from.

 

[pittstownkiller]

]You really think "buzzwords" are the best way to investigate this; how about the amount of their revenue they spend on their political arm - information readily available on their returns without an audit.

No, it is not easy to judge this from normal returns. That's part of the problem.

Once you allow a revenue based organization like the IRS to consider items beyond revenue, where does it stop? If you don't look solely at the money spent by these organizations on their political arm, what other criteria are you judging them by? If the NRA holds an assault rifle information/safety picnic day, one could easily try to make that a political speech event but it may not be. I would hope the IRS isn't the arbiter of what is political speech, or that there are not any ramifications to hauling specific groups into court.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Well, if a cop is only pulling over black people to give them speeding tickets, that's wrong, even if the people getting the tickets were actually speeding. This is along the same lines. I don't think it's a great argument to say that the parties getting scrutinized deserved to be scrutinized.

 

[Henry Ford]

Here we go - the apology I wholeheartedly agree with is the one related to apparently asking for donor lists for some of the organizations.

"That was wrong. That was absolutely incorrect, it was insensitive and it was inappropriate. That's not how we go about selecting cases for further review," Lerner said at a conference sponsored by the American Bar Association.

"The IRS would like to apologize for that," she added.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/irs-apologizes-probing-conservative-political-groups-article-1.1340348#ixzz2TBTfAwgS

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

The IRS has to make all sorts of judgments about things "beyond revenue." If we have laws that treat different things differently, somebody needs to make that determination.

 

[pittstownkiller]

I guess I just don't understand the incensed reaction, here. Outrage: "The IRS is targeting our political organizations!" Response: "Political organizations aren't allowed to have the status these organizations applied for." Case closed, in my opinion, other than checking to see if a bunch of left-wing apps made it through the process which shouldn't have. That would make me extremely upset.

because political targeting by the IRS is against the law, and for a good reason. i'm frankly quite surprised that people are defending this. it really stinks. p.s. nice strawman

I'm asking questions. If you'll notice, I mentioned that repeatedly in my posts. I'm not trying to put up a strawman, though by golly gosh I sure love seeing people post that on a message board, I'm asking the question - how are these both political/right wing organizations and unworthy of further scrutiny under the 501c4 process? And if that's not the case, then what's really going on?

I offer up the apology as the evidence and you ask why apologize if they did nothing wrong, without ever questioning why they did in the first place. I know enough about bureaucrats to know they aren't apologizing, unless they are caught doing something they should not have.

When did I ask that? I think I clearly said repeatedly that if left-wing organizations were treated differently, that's a problem. I agree that should be apologized for if that's what happened. But I don't think it's wrong to target politically-motivated applications for 501c4 status, no matter which side of the aisle they're from.

Forgive me Henry; your only issue is that left-leaning organizations were not also targeted? I do admit if this was standard protocal for all groups, I would not have a problem with it.

 

[Henry Ford]

Well, if a cop is only pulling over black people to give them speeding tickets, that's wrong, even if the people getting the tickets were actually speeding. This is along the same lines. I don't think it's a great argument to say that the parties getting scrutinized deserved to be scrutinized.

Were they only pulling over black people? Stats I read said there were 300 organizations flagged for scrutiny, and 75 were Tea Party related. Either way, as I've repeatedly said, yes - any disparate treatment is ridiculous. Every political organization should be given higher scrutiny for tax exempt status.

 

[Henry Ford]

I guess I just don't understand the incensed reaction, here. Outrage: "The IRS is targeting our political organizations!" Response: "Political organizations aren't allowed to have the status these organizations applied for." Case closed, in my opinion, other than checking to see if a bunch of left-wing apps made it through the process which shouldn't have. That would make me extremely upset.

because political targeting by the IRS is against the law, and for a good reason. i'm frankly quite surprised that people are defending this. it really stinks. p.s. nice strawman

I'm asking questions. If you'll notice, I mentioned that repeatedly in my posts. I'm not trying to put up a strawman, though by golly gosh I sure love seeing people post that on a message board, I'm asking the question - how are these both political/right wing organizations and unworthy of further scrutiny under the 501c4 process? And if that's not the case, then what's really going on?

I offer up the apology as the evidence and you ask why apologize if they did nothing wrong, without ever questioning why they did in the first place. I know enough about bureaucrats to know they aren't apologizing, unless they are caught doing something they should not have.

When did I ask that? I think I clearly said repeatedly that if left-wing organizations were treated differently, that's a problem. I agree that should be apologized for if that's what happened. But I don't think it's wrong to target politically-motivated applications for 501c4 status, no matter which side of the aisle they're from.

Forgive me Henry; your only issue is that left-leaning organizations were not also targeted? I do admit if this was standard protocal for all groups, I would. not have a problem with it.

If, indeed, that's the case, that's a serious problem. But yes, all political groups should be scrutinized heavily for 501c4 status. It's supposed to be for non-political groups which sometimes engage in political activity, not the opposite.

 

[3C's]

Has the ACLU commented yet?

http://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/irs-abuses-power-targeting-tea-party

 

[tommyboy]

Going to get a lot worse.

And libs, now you have concrete example of why conservatives and libertarians want less govt. The govt is not your " friend".

 

[3C's]

Going to get a lot worse.And libs, now you have concrete example of why conservatives and libertarians want less govt. The govt is not your " friend".

aka, we should just let obvious political organizations be tax cheats.

 

[Hang 10]

Going to get a lot worse.And libs, now you have concrete example of why conservatives and libertarians want less govt. The govt is not your " friend".

aka, we should just let obvious political organizations be tax cheats.

Just the left leaning ones apparently.

 

[3C's]

Going to get a lot worse.And libs, now you have concrete example of why conservatives and libertarians want less govt. The govt is not your " friend".

aka, we should just let obvious political organizations be tax cheats.

Just the left leaning ones apparently.

Huh, wonder what the political leanings were of the 225 other groups who were called out for extra scrutiny.

 

[pantagrapher]

Marco Rubio just called on President Obama to fire the Commissioner of the IRS. Small problem: the Commissioner in place when all this happened was Bush appointee Douglas H. Shulman. He left just after the November election and there’s an acting Commissioner currently in place.

That's amusing.

 

[Thunderlips]

I thought Conservatives were all about profiling?.....

How am I supposed to get upset that a Federal Institution that handles taxation looks more closely at the applications of people who openly advocate their hatred of and their desire to get rid of said institution?