IRS Admits Targeting Conservative Groups During 2012 Election 719
An anonymous reader writes "A recurring theme in comments on Slashdot since the 9/11 attacks has been concern about the use of government power to monitor or suppress political activity unassociated with terrorism but rather based on ideology. It has just been revealed that the IRS has in fact done that. From the story: "The Internal Revenue Service inappropriately flagged conservative political groups for additional reviews during the 2012 election . . . Organizations were singled out because they included the words 'tea party' or 'patriot' in their applications for tax-exempt status, said Lois Lerner, who heads the IRS division that oversees tax-exempt groups. In some cases, groups were asked for their list of donors, which violates IRS policy in most cases, she said.
'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 . . . 'The IRS would like to apologize for that,' she added. . . . Lerner said the practice was initiated by low-level workers in Cincinnati and was not motivated by political bias. . . . she told The AP that no high level IRS officials knew about the practice. Tea Party groups were livid on Friday. ... In all, about 300 groups were singled out for additional review. . . Tea Party groups weren't buying the idea that the decision to target them was solely the responsibility of low-level IRS workers. ... During the conference call it was stated that no disciplinary action had been taken by those who engaged in this activity. President Obama has previously joked about using the IRS to target people." So it's not how they choose cases for review (except when it is), and was not motivated by political bias (except that it was). Also at National Review, with more bite.
Definition of 'social welfare' (Score:5, Informative)
"These groups claim tax-exempt status under section 501 (c) (4) of the federal tax code, which is for social welfare groups. Unlike other charitable groups, these organizations are allowed to participate in political activities but their primary activity must be social welfare.
[...]As part of the review, staffers look for signs that groups are participating in political activity. If so, IRS agents take a closer look to make sure that politics isn't the group's primary activity."
From that description all the tea party groups, along with the liberal counterparts like moveon.org, shouldn't be tax-exempt because unless I misunderstand them their primary purpose is pretty damn political. Of course you can't enforce the law against only one set of groups but I wonder if the workers aren't being penalized because they were the only ones actually doing their jobs.
Re:If your group is (Score:5, Informative)
Mike, you can engage in political activity and still be a 501c3 or 4, but it can't be your primary activity.
If only those two were the only ways of being tax exempt. A political organization can be tax exempt if its primary activity is a tax exempt activity. Here: [irs.gov]
I'd say the Tea Party meets that requirement.
This is a distortion of what happened (Score:5, Informative)
You're playing games with the word *they*. They , the offenders- were identified as low level workers. They- the IRS- was not aware of what *they* - the culpable people- were doing.
So when you say *they* did this, be clear who *they* are. It was not the IRS as an organization, from the top-down. It was low level workers.
In case you're from Mars- this is frequently how organizations work with Earthlings.
You can DEPEND on the fact that this has been done in the opposite way to the opposite side before. If this kind of abuse is permitted structurally, then this is not the first time.
The solution has to be structural, because it's structural problem (which permitted people to do this). The last thing anyone wants is the IRS being used as a tool for personal vendettas. No one wants that and frankly I am surprised that this is not strictly made impossible and frankly I expect them to *make it so*.
Notice that this tactic of attacking an organization via the deeds iof its lowest workers s very similar to what was done with ACORN. After repeatedly fishing for a low level employee who would act inappropriately on camera, James O'Keefe finally settled for someone who appeared to be acting inappropriately (but who actually called the police after O'Keefe and his confederate left).
Of course they're going to try to gin this up into a second term killing "scandal" *it goes all the way to the top!!!* * we have the smoking gun!!!*
It's what they did to Clinton with with Monica Lewinsky. They take as their model what happened to Nixon with Watergate. They have tried this with *every single Democratic President * since Watergate. The difference is of course that Nixon was a genuine crook who genuinely broke the law and genuinely tried to use the power of the government to cover it up and genuinely provoked a Constitutional crisis.
Re:If your group is (Score:5, Informative)
I'm tuned into most of the major Tea Party social networks and the message to overthrow the US Government via armed rebellion is very thinly veiled if it's veiled at all.
I've been to a number of rallies and there are no such examples. You are merely making this up. All the Tea Party wants, all is has ever wanted is simply fiscal restraint and less government intrusion in our lives. I'm pretty sure you have confused just how exactly there comes to be less government. The last thing the Tea Party people want is some kind of overthrow which just leave different bastards in equal control of you.
You also seem to be utterly confused at the difference between "wed like to keep our guns to protect ourselves from criminals" vs. "We want to keep guns in a futile and utterly stupid attempt to attack the government". The Tea Party fights not with arms but through existing political process - which has been true from the start - and why they have seen such support and success. The best way to attack a rampant process is to inject yourself within and turn it on itself.
Re:It's NOT suppressing Free Speech (Score:5, Informative)
except for the fact that they weren't breaking the law!
From the following link, the IRS investigator Lerner had to say: "150 of the cases have been closed and no group had its tax-exempt status revoked..."
Wow, you deserve some sort of award for that brazen quote mining. And what are the words you cut out with that dot dot dot?
"150 of the cases have been closed and no group had its tax-exempt status revoked [dot dot dot] though some withdrew their applications."
It sounds like some groups were attempting to break the law (perhaps due to ignorance or error in what non-profits are permitted to do), and withdrew their tax-exempt-applications when IRS investigations caught their violation. Although at the moment we have no indication whether or not Tea Party groups were among those withdrawing tax-exempt claims.
-
Re:If your group is (Score:4, Informative)
You mean that totally made-up thing where an FBI plant
If you mean they were actually planning it, and one of them turned informant well then yes [thesmokinggun.com]. Perhaps you should be getting your information from someplace else instead of infowars.
Re:Accountability (Score:4, Informative)