Two Republican lawmakers and a conservative legal group are crying foul over the Justice Department’s selection of a Democratic donor to lead the agency’s investigation into the Internal Revenue Service’s targeting of advocacy groups during the 2010 and 2012 election cycles.

House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) and Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) issued a letter to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder on Wednesday saying DOJ trial attorney Barbara Bosserman’s involvement is “highly inappropriate and has compromised the administration’s investigation of the IRS.” They asked that the department remove her from the case.

Bosserman has donated a combined $6,750 to President Obama’s election campaigns and the Democratic National Committee since 2004, with the vast majority of the contributions coming during the last two presidential election cycles, according to federal campaign-finance records.
The American Center for Law and Justice, which is representing 41 organizations suing the IRS over its actions, criticized the appointment of Bosserman to lead the investigation in a statement on Thursday.

“Appointing an avowed political supporter of President Obama to head up the Justice Department probe is not only disturbing but puts politics right in the middle of what is supposed to be an independent investigation to determine who is responsible for the Obama administration’s unlawful targeting of conservative and tea party groups,” said ACLJ chief counsel Jay Sekulow.

The Justice Department contends that there was nothing improper about naming Bosserman to lead the investigation and that considering her political leanings would have been inappropriate.

“It is contrary to department policy and a prohibited personnel practice under federal law to consider the political affiliation of career employees or other non-merit factors in making personnel decisions,” DOJ spokeswoman Dena Iverson said in a statement. “Additionally, removing a career employee from an investigation or case due to political affiliation, as Chairmen Issa and Jordan have requested, could also violate the equal opportunity policy and the law.”

 whembly wrote:
Well... give it a chance. You never know.

Remember Scooter Libby?

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Well... give it a chance. You never know.

Remember Scooter Libby?

Do I have to?

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Well... give it a chance. You never know.

Remember Scooter Libby?

Do I have to?

Patrick Fitzgerald's was once claimed to be an insider to Bush's inner circle... but, he still nailed Scooter for lying.

LOS ANGELES — In a famously left-leaning Hollywood, where Democratic fund-raisers fill the social calendar, Friends of Abe stands out as a conservative group that bucks the prevailing political winds.

A collection of perhaps 1,500 right-leaning players in the entertainment industry, Friends of Abe keeps a low profile and fiercely protects its membership list, to avoid what it presumes would result in a sort of 21st-century blacklist, albeit on the other side of the partisan spectrum.

Now the Internal Revenue Service is reviewing the group’s activities in connection with its application for tax-exempt status. Last week, federal tax authorities presented the group with a 10-point request for detailed information about its meetings with politicians like Paul D. Ryan, Thaddeus McCotter and Herman Cain, among other matters, according to people briefed on the inquiry.

The people spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the organization’s confidentiality strictures, and to avoid complicating discussions with the I.R.S.

Those people said that the application had been under review for roughly two years, and had at one point included a demand — which was not met — for enhanced access to the group’s security-protected website, which would have revealed member names. Tax experts said that an organization’s membership list is information that would not typically be required. The I.R.S. already had access to the site’s basic levels, a request it considers routine for applications for 501(c)(3) nonprofit status.

Friends of Abe — the name refers to Abraham Lincoln — has strongly discouraged the naming of its members. That policy even prohibits the use of cameras at group events, to avoid the unwilling identification of all but a few associates — the actors Gary Sinise, Jon Voight and Kelsey Grammer, or the writer-producer Lionel Chetwynd, for instance — who have spoken openly about their conservative political views.

The I.R.S. request comes in the face of a continuing congressional investigation into the agency’s reviews of political nonprofits, most of them conservative-leaning, which provoked outrage on the right and forced the departure last year of several high-ranking I.R.S. officials. But unlike most of those groups, which had sought I.R.S. approval for a mix of election campaigning and nonpartisan issue advocacy, Friends of Abe is seeking a far more restrictive tax status, known as 501(c)(3), that would let donors claim a tax deduction, but strictly prohibits any form of partisan activity.

The group is not currently designated tax-exempt, but it behaves as a nonprofit and has almost no formal structure, people briefed on the matter said. The I.R.S. review will determine whether Friends of Abe receives tax-exempt status that would provide legal footing similar to that of the People for the American Way Foundation, a progressive group fostered by the television producer Norman Lear and others. If not, Friends of Abe could
resort to the courts, or it might simply operate as a nonprofit, but it would be unable to receive tax-deductible contributions.

Jeremy Boreing, executive director of Friends of Abe, declined on Wednesday to discuss details of the tax review, but said the group would continue regardless of outcome.

“Certainly, it’s been a long process,” he said.

“Friends of Abe has absolutely no political agenda,” he added. “It exists to create fellowship among like-minded individuals.”

People for the American Way, Mr. Lear’s group, stands as something of a liberal counterpart to Friends of Abe, though the organization is far larger, with an affiliate that spends millions of dollars a year on issue advocacy in Washington and beyond. But the entertainment industry has been crisscrossed by progressive groups like the Natural Resources Defense Council, which maintains a tax-exempt educational adjunct under the 501(c)(3) provision, and includes the producer Laurie David and the actor Leonardo DiCaprio among its trustees. Another, the American Foundation for Equal Rights, is a nonprofit that supports marriage rights for gay people and counts the producer Bruce Cohen and the writer Dustin Lance Black among its founders.

In the request last week, tax officials combined broad questions about membership criteria and social events, according to the people briefed on the matter, with pointed queries about meetings with a Los Angeles mayoral candidate, Kevin James, and Republican politicians like Mr. Ryan, Mr. Cain and Rick Santorum.

Officials particularly wanted to know why a speech introducing Mr. Cain at a Friends of Abe event in November 2011 — when he was a presidential candidate — should not be regarded as potentially prohibited political campaign support.

While tax-exempt groups are permitted to invite candidates to speak at events, it is not uncommon for the I.R.S. to scrutinize such activities to determine whether they cross the line into partisan election activity. One issue is whether the organization invites all the qualified candidates.

“The I.R.S. would say that if you are inviting only conservative candidates, that’s a problem,” said Marcus S. Owens, a former director of the I.R.S.’s exempt organizations division. “But it’s never really been litigated.”

Ofer Lion, a lawyer representing Friends of Abe in its application for tax-exempt status, declined to comment.

Friends of Abe began about nine years ago as little more than an email chain linking conservative stars, filmmakers and other Hollywood figures who were generally reluctant to openly discuss their views. The name is a take on Friends of Bill, the circle of loyalists who have adhered to Bill Clinton over the years.

Mr. Sinise was a leading voice among those who in early 2005 gathered at Morton’s Steakhouse here for an informal dinner that members have since identified as the group’s closest approach to an actual founding moment.

As Friends of Abe grew, however, Mr. Sinise withdrew from active leadership, and Mr. Boreing, a film producer and director, took charge.

Membership has been defined mostly by access to a private website (there are no dues, but enhanced online access requires a small fee), and attendance at a growing number of events that have included meetings with political operatives like Karl Rove and Frank Luntz; politicians like Michele Bachmann and John Boehner; and media figures like Ann Coulter, Dennis Miller and Mark Levin.

The recent I.R.S. query did not mention the earlier request for access to the names of members, people briefed on the query said.

But a remaining question is whether at least some of the group’s politically oriented encounters will be interpreted as campaign activity, and weigh against its bid for tax exemption as a 501(c)(3) organization, devoted to educational or charitable work.

A spokesman for the I.R.S. on Wednesday said it was prohibited from commenting on specific taxpayer activity.

Tax officials and congressional overseers have been embroiled in a debate over the enforcement of rules that restrict campaign activity by tax-exempt groups since last year, when an I.R.S. official acknowledged that officers had improperly targeted Tea Party groups for extra scrutiny. But most of those groups were seeking recognition as so-called 501(c)(4) groups, whose ability to conduct a limited amount of campaign activity is governed by a vague patchwork of rules and standards. In November, in an effort to make the process both more transparent and more rigorous, the I.R.S. announced that it would begin formulating new rules.

 WarOne wrote:
Unfortunately, as we learn about our government:

They never learn from their past mistakes.

Only make even more head scratching decisions.

 whembly wrote:

Shocking eh?

 whembly wrote:

Still another coincidence that: IRS proposes new 501(c)(4) Rules That just so happens to cover most tea party groups.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Shocking eh?

It is quite shocking that Friends of Abe claims to have no political agenda.

At any rate, an organization like Friends of Abe likely has a great deal of commonality between its membership list, and donor list*. Given this, I can see how a request for a donor list might be described as a request for a membership list by members of Friends of Abe.



*Which all nonprofits must provide along with Form 990.[/size]

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:

Still another coincidence that: IRS proposes new 501(c)(4) Rules That just so happens to cover most tea party groups.

The rule changes cover all 501(c)(4)s, not just Tea Party groups. The one most people seem to take issue with is that money expended in support of, or opposition to, a particular candidate can no longer be claimed as being spent in the interest of public welfare; a good change.

 Frazzled wrote:
Nothing besides true charities (with over 80% of expenditures are on nonpolitical charity work) and religious institutions should pay taxes. Enough of this crap on all sides.

 Frazzled wrote:
Nothing besides true charities (with over 80% of expenditures are on nonpolitical charity work) and religious institutions should pay taxes. Enough of this crap on all sides.

 whembly wrote:

I think you're getting mixed up there... it's almost never needed to provide membership/donor lists.

 whembly wrote:

Or, did you already forget that a leak of this sort by the IRS has happened in the past?

 whembly wrote:

Which this new critia excludes labor unions or the Chamber of Commerce?

 whembly wrote:

Keep in mind that the proposed change is directed only at 501(c)(4) social-welfare groups... the tax category that has of late been flooded by conservative/Tea Parth groups.

 whembly wrote:

The unions/Chamber of Commerce groups, traditionally very pro-Democrats (which file under 501(c)(5))... are largely unscathed with these proposed rule changes and can continue playing in politics.

 whembly wrote:

What the rule in fact does is recategorize as "political" all manner of educational activities that 501(c)(4) social-welfare organizations currently engage in.

 djones520 wrote:
Dogma, the leak did occur. It wasn't just a "request". The leaker has been identified. The investigation was just stonewalled due to privacy laws. Congressional investigators know who is responsible, they just can't do anything about it.

 whembly wrote:
Well... give it a chance. You never know.

Remember Scooter Libby?

 Jihadin wrote:
Us vs them is really getting old. The common peeps...like us...need to hit the damn reset

President Barack Obama maintains there’s “not even a smidgen of corruption” in the Internal Revenue Service’s targeting of tea party and conservative groups, that it was just the result of “bone-headed decisions” by low-level IRS technocrats.

But testimony at a congressional hearing last week raised red flags about IRS abuse of conservatives that should trouble Americans no matter what their political leanings.

When the IRS revelations broke, Obama promised a full investigation. Yet Cleta Mitchell, an attorney for a number of tea party and conservative groups targeted by the IRS, testified, “None of my clients have received a single contact from the FBI, the DOJ [Department of Justice] or any other investigator regarding the IRS scandal.”

She detailed for a House oversight subcommittee several areas worthy of criminal investigation into the taxman’s singling out conservative groups for special scrutiny and intrusive questioning regarding their nonprofit tax status.

In 2012, then IRS commissioner Doug Shulman told Congress there had been no targeting of tea party groups even though we now know it had been going on since 2009. “The last time I checked, lying to Congress is a felony,” Mitchell said.

Confidential donor information about several conservative groups, including the National Organization for Marriage, the Texas Public Policy Foundation and the Republican Governors Public Policy Council, were leaked to their political foes or the public. “That is a crime,” she noted.

And Mitchell pointed to the elephant in the room in the IRS controversy: former IRS executive Lois Lerner invoking her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination before the same subcommittee. “She apparently knows of criminal acts involved in this scandal.”

Also testifying was one of Mitchell’s clients, Catherine Engelbrecht, owner of a small Texas manufacturing firm who organized two non-profits, one of them True the Vote.

In running a business for two decades, she had never been investigated by the federal government. But since the beginning of her political activism in 2010, “my private business, my nonprofit organizations, and family have been subjected to more than 15 instances of audit or inquiry by federal agencies.” Those include the IRS, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the Bureau of Alcohol and Firearms, and the FBI.

I guess the administration wants us to believe that is all coincidence.

The top Democrat on the panel, Elijah Cummings, tried to discredit Engelbrecht by accusing True the Vote of sending poll watchers to minority districts. Engelbrecht said her group only trains election volunteers and doesn’t send them anywhere.

Conservatives are outraged that the mainstream media and many civil rights groups swallow hook, line and sinker the White House position that the IRS is a “phony scandal.”

It is unimaginable that IRS special scrutiny of liberal groups during a Republican administration would be written off as bureaucratic bungling.

To many conservatives, Obama’s assertion of “not even a smidgen of corruption” sounds a lot like another White House’s claim that Watergate was “a third-rate burglary.”

And Mitchell pointed to the elephant in the room in the IRS controversy: former IRS executive Lois Lerner invoking her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination before the same subcommittee. “She apparently knows of criminal acts involved in this scandal.”

 djones520 wrote:

And Mitchell pointed to the elephant in the room in the IRS controversy: former IRS executive Lois Lerner invoking her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination before the same subcommittee. “She apparently knows of criminal acts involved in this scandal.”

That's the part of the story that caught my eye more then anything else.

 LordofHats wrote:
It actually doesn't indicate she knows of criminal acts involved in the scandal. It indicates she knows of something criminal, which answering the question would reveal which might not be about this scandal but maybe some other scandal we don't know about. I'm guessing mole men.

 djones520 wrote:
All the more reason for us to DIG and find out!

 LordofHats wrote:
I'm guessing mole men.

When the IRS revelations broke, Obama promised a full investigation. Yet Cleta Mitchell, an attorney for a number of tea party and conservative groups targeted by the IRS, testified, “None of my clients have received a single contact from the FBI, the DOJ [Department of Justice] or any other investigator regarding the IRS scandal.”

Also testifying was one of Mitchell’s clients, Catherine Engelbrecht, owner of a small Texas manufacturing firm who organized two non-profits, one of them True the Vote.

In running a business for two decades, she had never been investigated by the federal government. But since the beginning of her political activism in 2010, “my private business, my nonprofit organizations, and family have been subjected to more than 15 instances of audit or inquiry by federal agencies.” Those include the IRS, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the Bureau of Alcohol and Firearms, and the FBI.

 whembly wrote:
Well... give it a chance. You never know.

Remember Scooter Libby?

 whembly wrote:
Deserve a new thread, or stick it here? Bah, keep it clean

 whembly wrote:
Another coincidence that: James O'Keefe group being audited by NY. Again.

Still another coincidence that: IRS proposes new 501(c)(4) Rules That just so happens to cover most tea party groups.

Yet another coincidence: Dinesh D'Souza indicted for election fraud... politically motivated?

 whembly wrote:
Keep in mind that the proposed change is directed only at 501(c)(4) social-welfare groups... the tax category that has of late been flooded by conservative/Tea Parth groups.

The unions/Chamber of Commerce groups, traditionally very pro-Democrats (which file under 501(c)(5))... are largely unscathed with these proposed rule changes and can continue playing in politics.

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Well... give it a chance. You never know.

Remember Scooter Libby?

I don't think anyone went in to the Scooter Libby thing hoping that it was his head they'd claim. So when the buck stopped with Libby and went no further, there was plenty of reason to doubt the quality of that investigation. Especially given the political connections of the lead investigator. Now, I'm not saying the investigation there was properly handled or not, I'm just talking about the perception people held.

And that's really why this appointment is so terrible - you must not only do justice, but you must be seen to be doing justice. Even if this investigation is properly handled, the political connections of the lead investigator will cause a lot of people to doubt its processes and conclusions.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Deserve a new thread, or stick it here? Bah, keep it clean

On a slight tangent, there's currently a debate here in Oz going on here about how we register charities. It's currently done by one national body, but that body has over-reached in a couple of areas, under-delivered in a couple of others and it is perceived it costs a lot more than it ought to in general. Reform is needed, but others are pushing for dissolution and going back to having each state regulate its charities, or to having out tax office, the ATO take over the role.

That last option has led to a rather interesting debate over that's pretty clearly established that putting the tax collecting body in charge of who is and isn't a charity is a terrible idea, because by their very nature body charities and tax collecting agencies are going to be antagonistic. And it seems to me that's actually what's driving a lot of the issue with the IRS - the requests for information take on an intimidating tone simply because of who's asking, and not actually what they're asking for.

That isn't to say that what's happened is just inevitable (the IRS could have handled a lot of its investigations a lot better) or that there's no issue of conservative groups being focussed on more closely isn't a thing (though that's certainly a lot more questionable than it was at first, as more information came to light)... but just to say that really, all this could have been avoided had charity registration been handled by a different organisation, and to point out that this is likely to happen all over again in some other form unless some group other than the IRS handles charity registration in the future.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Another coincidence that: James O'Keefe group being audited by NY. Again.

Capone claiming it was unfair that he got so much police attention didn’t really work because he did a lot of criminal stuff. O'Keefe claiming he's getting victimised only works if he isn't actually breaking tax law.

Still another coincidence that: IRS proposes new 501(c)(4) Rules That just so happens to cover most tea party groups.

It covers political groups on the exact opposite end of the political spectrum just as much.

Yet another coincidence: Dinesh D'Souza indicted for election fraud... politically motivated?

That's a pretty goofy article, making out that D'Souza just 'oh whoopsie' happened to accidentally fall foul of the law through some technicality, when what he actually did was attempt to avoid the $5,000 limit by giving money through other people's names.

I mean, that's pretty clearly fraud by the law you've got. If there's other cases where such things have happened but there was no prosecution, then by all means list them and then I can agree the law is being selective. But in and of itself, D'Souza's case seems kind of obvious to me.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Keep in mind that the proposed change is directed only at 501(c)(4) social-welfare groups... the tax category that has of late been flooded by conservative/Tea Parth groups.

The unions/Chamber of Commerce groups, traditionally very pro-Democrats (which file under 501(c)(5))... are largely unscathed with these proposed rule changes and can continue playing in politics.

Chamber of Commerce pro-Democrat? Those groups form explicitly to represent and lobby on behalf of business. If Republicans don't have them on-side something is very wrong with that party.

 Alexzandvar wrote:
One of the most bi-partisan things about this country is bureaucratic issues. No matter what the President, no matter what the head of state, gak happens.

This isn't an excuse obviously, but to think Obama is literally destroying this country because he's made the same mistakes pretty much every president does to varying degrees is silly

Hell, it's really funny to read my dads old diaries about when he worked at the Reagan white houses during Iran Contra, and how he says word for word how something like this will probably happen again under a Democratic president and it will be the Repub's setting the torches and sharpening the pitchforks.

For the record, yes my father was and still is a democrat.

 Alexzandvar wrote:
One of the most bi-partisan things about this country is bureaucratic issues. No matter what the President, no matter what the head of state, gak happens.

This isn't an excuse obviously, but to think Obama is literally destroying this country because he's made the same mistakes pretty much every president does to varying degrees is silly

Hell, it's really funny to read my dads old diaries about when he worked at the Reagan white house during Iran Contra, and how he says word for word how something like this will probably happen again under a Democratic president and it will be the Repub's setting the torches and sharpening the pitchforks.

For the record, yes my father was and still is a democrat.

 whembly wrote:

You're deflecting...

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

You're deflecting...

Pointing out that chambers of commerce are, generally speaking, not pro-Democrat is not deflection as it pertains directly to your knowledge and competence regarding the debate at hand.

 whembly wrote:

You're in the same bucket.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

You're in the same bucket.

See, that's deflection. No bucket was referenced earlier in the debate, and I have no idea what metaphorical "bucket" I am supposedly in; either with you or sebster.

 Alexzandvar wrote:
I would say this is less of a sign of political corruption and more of a sign that if a tax law shouldn't be so hard to interpret.

Honestly this is making a mountain out of a mole hill here, I don't see how this is bad as long as all the groups under the law were treated with the same scorn. And I can't say that I would blame the IRS for getting active about Tea Party groups, since there are more than a few which are a threat to the overall functioning of the government by backing canadites like Ted Cruz.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

You're in the same bucket.

See, that's deflection. No bucket was referenced earlier in the debate, and I have no idea what metaphorical "bucket" I am supposedly in; either with you or sebster.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Personally my view is that the IRS would be justified if they treated all of the supposedly non-political 501(c)(4)s. A tea party group is blatantly political. There are progressive groups that are blatantly political. They should not be tax exempt. Now the only question that has yet been answered for me is did they go after all groups equally or not because, IIRC, they did no after progressive groups too.

 whembly wrote:

 Alexzandvar wrote:
I would say this is less of a sign of political corruption and more of a sign that if a tax law shouldn't be so hard to interpret.

Honestly this is making a mountain out of a mole hill here, I don't see how this is bad as long as all the groups under the law were treated with the same scorn. And I can't say that I would blame the IRS for getting active about Tea Party groups, since there are more than a few which are a threat to the overall functioning of the government by backing canadites like Ted Cruz.

You might wanna do some reading...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2013/07/16/as-debate-into-tax-exempt-scandal-continues-heres-a-timeline-of-who-knew-what-and-when/

 Alexzandvar wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Alexzandvar wrote:
I would say this is less of a sign of political corruption and more of a sign that if a tax law shouldn't be so hard to interpret.

Honestly this is making a mountain out of a mole hill here, I don't see how this is bad as long as all the groups under the law were treated with the same scorn. And I can't say that I would blame the IRS for getting active about Tea Party groups, since there are more than a few which are a threat to the overall functioning of the government by backing canadites like Ted Cruz.

You might wanna do some reading...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2013/07/16/as-debate-into-tax-exempt-scandal-continues-heres-a-timeline-of-who-knew-what-and-when/

The timeline is interesting but It still does not address weather we only know tea party groups were the only ones targeted.

Again this reeks more of a bureaucratic screw up that people in the IRS are uneasy about because they don't want to admit they misinterpreted. The leap that this is some how a evil right off the bat when this could just be incompetence tells me that people are reaching for something here.

I have a question, when it comes to the government is it innocent until proven guilty? Or guilty until proven innocent?

Prove to me in a court of law that were was abuse, and I will grant you my out rage.

But until then I will cast no judgement. Offer up a reason? yes, but I feel that the constant fishing for the next watergate is not only destructive, but divisive.

 whembly wrote:
I've always stated that this issue is a bigger "scandal" than what transpired in Benghazi (or even Watergate).

Regardless... you haven't answered my earlier question, so I'll restate:
Had this occurred during a Republican administration, whereas this time, the targeting were specfically liberal groups.... what's your response?

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:
I've always stated that this issue is a bigger "scandal" than what transpired in Benghazi (or even Watergate).

I'm going to have to disagree with you here whembly. Watergate was a much bigger scandal.

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:
I've always stated that this issue is a bigger "scandal" than what transpired in Benghazi (or even Watergate).

I'm going to have to disagree with you here whembly. Watergate was a much bigger scandal.

What?

Depends...

Watergate was about influencing the elections.

IRS Scandalgate, if true, is... guess what? Influencing the elections. Only that, instead of going after political opponents (ie, Watergate), the IRS Scandalgate targeted "we the people".

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Regardless... you haven't answered my earlier question, so I'll restate:
Had this occurred during a Republican administration, whereas this time, the targeting were specfically liberal groups.... what's your response?

Although the question was not directed at me I want to answer it. They are somewhat justified. The groups are blatantly political, and thus should not be tax exempt.

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Regardless... you haven't answered my earlier question, so I'll restate:
Had this occurred during a Republican administration, whereas this time, the targeting were specfically liberal groups.... what's your response?

Although the question was not directed at me I want to answer it. They are somewhat justified. The groups are blatantly political, and thus should not be tax exempt.

Well, do you consider Media Matters blatantly political?

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Regardless... you haven't answered my earlier question, so I'll restate:
Had this occurred during a Republican administration, whereas this time, the targeting were specfically liberal groups.... what's your response?

Although the question was not directed at me I want to answer it. They are somewhat justified. The groups are blatantly political, and thus should not be tax exempt.

Well, do you consider Media Matters blatantly political?

No idea. Just a second, I have to look up what media matters is.
Edit: Looked at their main page. Just from that I'd say yes.

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Regardless... you haven't answered my earlier question, so I'll restate:
Had this occurred during a Republican administration, whereas this time, the targeting were specfically liberal groups.... what's your response?

Although the question was not directed at me I want to answer it. They are somewhat justified. The groups are blatantly political, and thus should not be tax exempt.

Well, do you consider Media Matters blatantly political?

No idea. Just a second, I have to look up what media matters is.
Edit: Looked at their main page. Just from that I'd say yes.

No worries.

I know who they are... and they've been exempted from all those extra attentions. There are hundreds of organizations just like this one.

See my point?

 whembly wrote:

The point that Seb was missing was that under these proposed rules, activities such as candidate forums, get out the vote efforts, and voter registration would now be considered “political activity” for 501(c)(4) groups.

 whembly wrote:

Groups like the Chamber of Commerce and Unions (under the same type) CAN engage in these activities as it's still kosher.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

The point that Seb was missing was that under these proposed rules, activities such as candidate forums, get out the vote efforts, and voter registration would now be considered “political activity” for 501(c)(4) groups.

Per that argumet there would be tons of negatively affected left-leaning groups, as GOTV and voter registration are historical cornerstones of left-leaning 501(c)(4)s. So, at best you're providing evidence that your outrage is based on ignorance.

Of course the proposed regulations wouldn't actually do what you seem to believe they would do. Rather, the proposed regulations would prevent 501(c)(4)s from claiming candidate related political activity as being in interests of social welfare. This wouldn't prevent them from engaging in candidate related political activity, but it would mean that it would not count towards determining whether or not a given 501(c)(4) was dedicated to social welfare under the "primarily" standard. As such, any given 501(c)(4) could engage in all the things you mentioned, just not too much of the first one.

 whembly wrote:

Groups like the Chamber of Commerce and Unions (under the same type) CAN engage in these activities as it's still kosher.

Again, chambers of commerce and unions are not the same kind of 501(c) organizations, nor are chambers of commerce generally pro-Democrat so referring to the fact that proposed IRS rule changes do not affect them is immaterial to your argument.

 whembly wrote:

You're still not getting it...

 whembly wrote:

The 501(c)(4)s are permitted to engage in the political process and in political discourse... these activities have a clear role in promoting civic engagement and social welfare.

The proposed rule would amend current regulations by indicating that the promotion of social welfare does not include these type of activites... it's like change the rules of the game, while the game is in progress.

 whembly wrote:

It's an attempt to legitimized the IRS actions that started this whole ordeal.

 whembly wrote:
I'm don't believe we're seeing eye-to-eye...

 whembly wrote:

So, organizations like Media Matters Action Network MMAN, a sister org to Media Matters For America, that’s tax-exempt under the current 501(c)(4) of the IRS code.

The same sort of organization, on the opposite end of the political spectrum, as the tea-party groups that were harassed by the IRS.

 whembly wrote:

You seem to think I'm only crying about that it's singling out the tea party groups.

 Alexzandvar wrote:
The problem here is Whembly is that there is not enough proof at all for any of this to hold up to any scrutiny.

Dogma has spent a few posts explaining how the IRS is ironically doing what they should in the circumstances permitted.

If your so eager for your day in court for things like this and Bengazhi you need a better argument than you think something unjust is possibly happening/happened.

The Government's job is to protect people, to work towards creating a future we can proud of, and to create the basis for Civilization here and now into the future.

The Government's job is not to justify itself every time someone brings forth an issue that not only doesn't have enough evidence to fly in court but not enough to fly in a Wargaming websites off topic forum.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:
I'm don't believe we're seeing eye-to-eye...

That's because you keep changing your argument, and I am continually forced to bring you back on topic. For example...

 whembly wrote:

So, organizations like Media Matters Action Network MMAN, a sister org to Media Matters For America, that’s tax-exempt under the current 501(c)(4) of the IRS code.

The same sort of organization, on the opposite end of the political spectrum, as the tea-party groups that were harassed by the IRS.

...we were not discussing MMAN. We were discussing proposed changes to IRS regulations regarding 501(c)(4) organizations. Changes which would also impact MMAN, indicating that your argument regarding the nature of the proposed changes is off-base.

 whembly wrote:

You seem to think I'm only crying about that it's singling out the tea party groups.

I never made such an argument, or anything approaching one.

 whembly wrote:

 Alexzandvar wrote:
The problem here is Whembly is that there is not enough proof at all for any of this to hold up to any scrutiny.

Dogma has spent a few posts explaining how the IRS is ironically doing what they should in the circumstances permitted.

If your so eager for your day in court for things like this and Bengazhi you need a better argument than you think something unjust is possibly happening/happened.

The Government's job is to protect people, to work towards creating a future we can proud of, and to create the basis for Civilization here and now into the future.

The Government's job is not to justify itself every time someone brings forth an issue that not only doesn't have enough evidence to fly in court but not enough to fly in a Wargaming websites off topic forum.

You just refused to see it.

And it is ABSOLUTELY the Government's job to justify itself. Otherwise, you're living in a Banana Republic.

 Alexzandvar wrote:

And if there really was enough evidence Whembly then there would be a serious case in the courts about it.

 Alexzandvar wrote:
I said a serious court case, not a coalition of fringe groups getting together and demanding there be a trial despite providing no more, nay less information you have in this very thread.

I'm a fairly open minded guy, but at this point this is just another Bureaucracy slip that fringe groups latch onto (like Rush Limbaugh) to attempt to push the "Us VS Them" narrative

 whembly wrote:

Sigh... you refused to addressed it.

The proposed rulings, if implemented, would render any charges of malfeasance against the IRS moot.

THATS. THE. FETHING. POINT.

It's an attempt to sweep this issue under the rug.

 whembly wrote:

Oh come on. From day numero uno, you've taken the IRS' side.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Sigh... you refused to addressed it.

The proposed rulings, if implemented, would render any charges of malfeasance against the IRS moot.

THATS. THE. FETHING. POINT.

It's an attempt to sweep this issue under the rug.

That's the first time in this thread that you believed these changes would render any charges of malfeasance against the IRS moot. So you are changing your argument yet again, as your position previously turned on a claim that the proposed changes was another instance of the IRS targeting conservative NPOs.

To be tax-exempt as a social welfare organization described in Internal Revenue Code (IRC) section 501(c)(4), an organization must not be organized for profit and must be operated exclusively to promote social welfare…

The promotion of social welfare does not include direct or indirect participation or intervention in political campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office. However, a section 501(c)(4) social welfare organization may engage in some political activities, so long as that is not its primary activity.

define things such as distributing voter guides, registering people to vote and running ads that mention elected officials close to Election Day as “candidate-related political activities.” The rule would substantially roll back the level of political activity open to “social welfare” groups.

That aside, how would these changes render any charges of IRS malfeasance moot? They do not immunize anyone from prosecution, prevent any given employee from being fired, disallow lawsuits against the IRS, or prevent the public from continuing to be upset about preexisting instances of IRS malfeasance.

 whembly wrote:

Oh come on. From day numero uno, you've taken the IRS' side.

I'm not on any particular side other than my own, and in my opinion much of the criticism of the IRS is unfair, or was unfair given the information available at the time; I have consistently argued to this effect.

 whembly wrote:
Secondly... honestly please, had this happened under a Republican administration vs liberal groups, would you still defend the IRS actions?

Heh... guess, what... he wasn't breaking the law. If I remember right, he posted the full video in his last two stings. I'll admit, he's an f'n troublemaker that seems to push the envelope too much.

No...it's an attempt to legitimize the "targeting".

Yes, he did break the law, but what's interesting is that this seemed retalitory... in a sense, "selective prosecution". The prosecutor behind this is on the shortlist to replace Holder.

If you want to demand ‘zero tolerance,’ let’s have at it... let's have unfettered FBI/DOJ investigation into every allegation, starting with the fundraising apparatus built by the president (the online contributions website with disabled verify mechanisms) and his ‘Chicagoland’ cronies.

*shrug*

The real issue is that campaign finance law is so haphazardly enforced... usually, its someone who so egregiously breaks the law (ie, straw donor schemes involving hundreds of thousand, if not millions), rather than the $15,000 D'Souza contributed.

You're deflecting...

 whembly wrote:
Touché.

The point that Seb was missing was that under these proposed rules, activities such as candidate forums, get out the vote efforts, and voter registration would now be considered “political activity” for 501(c)(4) groups.

Groups like the Chamber of Commerce and Unions (under the same type) CAN engage in these activities as it's still kosher.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Personally my view is that the IRS would be justified if they treated all of the supposedly non-political 501(c)(4)s. A tea party group is blatantly political. There are progressive groups that are blatantly political. They should not be tax exempt. Now the only question that has yet been answered for me is did they go after all groups equally or not because, IIRC, they did no after progressive groups too.

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Secondly... honestly please, had this happened under a Republican administration vs liberal groups, would you still defend the IRS actions?

When the first story came out, I said what happened was terrible. I don't know if you remember that, but I actually commented that this was the scandal to actually get worked up over, that Benghazi never was.

But as the issue has continued and I've learned a lot more, it's become apparent that the early narrative was really just the GOP take on events, and that the truth of what happened was a lot more complex. I mean, sure, the IRS actions where poor (as we agree, approval of charity status shouldn't be an IRS thing), but evidence that there was deliberate targeting of right wing groups is actually very light on the ground, and evidence that this was in any way organised and not just individual IRS agents is even thinner.

No...it's an attempt to legitimize the "targeting".

But there is nothing in the legislation that makes it easier to target a Republican aligned group any more than a Democrat aligned group.

Yes, he did break the law, but what's interesting is that this seemed retalitory... in a sense, "selective prosecution". The prosecutor behind this is on the shortlist to replace Holder.

If you want to demand ‘zero tolerance,’ let’s have at it... let's have unfettered FBI/DOJ investigation into every allegation, starting with the fundraising apparatus built by the president (the online contributions website with disabled verify mechanisms) and his ‘Chicagoland’ cronies.

*shrug*

The real issue is that campaign finance law is so haphazardly enforced... usually, its someone who so egregiously breaks the law (ie, straw donor schemes involving hundreds of thousand, if not millions), rather than the $15,000 D'Souza contributed.

Do you have other cases in which the law was breached but there's no investigation?

 whembly wrote:
It's an attempt to legitimized the IRS actions that started this whole ordeal.

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
It's an attempt to legitimized the IRS actions that started this whole ordeal.

Unless you take the job of deciding who's a charity and give it to some other body (which no-one is talking about), then this has to be a legitimate operation of the IRS.

You can't just have people deciding for themselves whether their group is a charity, someone has to investigate it and determine whether its actually true or not. And as long as that is the case, then you need that process formalised and made clear to all involved - which is the biggest issue I can see with the IRS operation - with no clear process under law, they followed an ad hoc and often informal process, which of course led to feelings of poor treatement by some investigated groups, and instances of excessive inquiry by IRS officials.

 Alexzandvar wrote:

You never answered my question about your assertion it's rampant paranoia and fear mongering are what keep the government in check. Or that you had any idea our system of government is not perfect and that other free countries exist around the world that and we are not authorities to say how anyone else should run their country.

 whembly wrote:

The new proposed regulation legitimizes this targeting... wouldn't you agree?

 whembly wrote:

Can be ambiguous... no? This puts such determination on the IRS' hand to potentially engage in these endeavors.

 whembly wrote:

define things such as distributing voter guides, registering people to vote and running ads that mention elected officials close to Election Day as “candidate-related political activities.” The rule would substantially roll back the level of political activity open to “social welfare” groups.

 whembly wrote:

So, on the one hand, you had organizations, under (c)(4), were granted great latitude to engage in elections, which many groups from all political persuasions, have increasingly exercised in recent years.

On the other hand, this new proposal would significantly change the ways in which tax-exempt organizations are used for political purposes... which traditionally the IRS gave zero feths about.

 whembly wrote:

Because then it would be easier to defend those actions politically if the new rules are in placed.

 Alexzandvar wrote:
You said that unless we constantly question the government we will end up like a "Banana republic"

First your inferring that you have any right to look down on other peoples form of governance with out being at least self aware of your own.

Second you twisted my words by claiming that we should always question the government, when my claim was that pointlessly questioning the government with no evidence only contributes to the problem of an overloaded bureaucracy rather than help fix it. I never stated that questioning the government when evidence can be provided that will hold up in court is bad. In fact, I said the opposite.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Can be ambiguous... no? This puts such determination on the IRS' hand to potentially engage in these endeavors.

You're switching arguments again, and strangely moving on to one I've made before, which is that the ambiguity within the NPO tax code needs to be eliminated. These proposed regulations work to eliminate the ambiguity in their enforcement, but the IRS has no power to alter the tax code itself; that's left to Congress.

Anyway, the agency whose purpose is to enforce the tax code is always going to be, ultimately, responsible for determining whether or not a particular group qualifies for a particular sort of tax status. That's an inevitable consequence of bureaucracy.

 whembly wrote:

define things such as distributing voter guides, registering people to vote and running ads that mention elected officials close to Election Day as “candidate-related political activities.” The rule would substantially roll back the level of political activity open to “social welfare” groups.

That's not my interpretation of the proposed rule changes, but if that interpretation is correct it would also have a massive impact on liberal organizations because, as I said before, things voter registration and GOTV are historical cornerstones of left-leaning 501(c)(4) activity.

This would mean that these rule changes are not a case of targeting according to political leaning.

 whembly wrote:

So, on the one hand, you had organizations, under (c)(4), were granted great latitude to engage in elections, which many groups from all political persuasions, have increasingly exercised in recent years.

On the other hand, this new proposal would significantly change the ways in which tax-exempt organizations are used for political purposes... which traditionally the IRS gave zero feths about.

Well, that's wrong on its face. Minimally it is clear the IRS was quite concerned by 501(c)(4)s for many years, hence all the allegations of targeting and move to centralize the 501(c)(4) review process. Further, that section of the tax code had been a point of concern for many people working within the political community, the nonprofit community, and the regulatory community; especially in the wake of Citizen's United.

That you're only hearing about it now is because it simply wasn't sufficiently scandalous to show up on your radar.

 whembly wrote:

Because then it would be easier to defend those actions politically if the new rules are in placed.

No it wouldn't, that's nonsense. On a political level the allegations are essentially damage done, and regulatory changes will not make them more defensible. At least beyond the sense that they could be used as an example of Democrats attempting to fix a problem, which is likely a big reason Republicans are so intent on painting these changes as part of the problem.

 Alexzandvar wrote:
I dismissed it because despite your claims it has no more evidence than the flimsy things you have said and or just linked in this thread. These things do not make a good court case.

And, once again you twist my words because I said "question the government", because it summed up your statement in fewer words not because I was implying a different meaning.

And I don't get how you don't understand my point? Do you not know what "infer" means? It's reading in between the lines.

First you state that unless the government justifies itself all the time we are heading towards "Banana Republic", by stating this you are asserting that unless someone follows the strict guide lines you have layed down they are on there way to destruction. This of course, is untrue and by stating it, it makes you seem silly because our government has never made a habit of justifying itself (Like many other western government's that use top down systems like ours) , and we are not a banana republic.

The Fed is held only accountable for things you can prove, because if we went your way of the government selling every single thing it does to the public (in other words "Justifying" it) it would not actually have any time or funding to do the thing itself. You should fly over to D.C. sometime, you can get tours of some of the departments.

Our government operates on the idea people with knowledge in there chosen fields who are assigned to working the government agency that deals with that field does not need the president their to hold their hand.

What your suggesting Whembly is McCarthyism, pointless witch hunts and hounding in order to once again, reinforce the "Us VS Them" narrative.

It's ironic really, that your "fix" to government over regulation is just over regulating the government itself.

 whembly wrote:
Why did Lerner plead the 5th?

Why hasn't the DoJ/FBI actually, you know, interview any of the targeted groups? If nothing else, to document their statements at the very least?

Why and what were the details of Lerner and other officials using unsanctioned email accounts in discussing IRS business?

I refute your classification that "evidence" is very light here...

True... and theoretically, a Republican adminstration could pull this gak. It's still bad.

I'm not quite sure I understand what you're asking?

 whembly wrote:
Of course it's a legitimate operation. So where's the Checks & Balances to ensure that the process is grounded? OH! Yeah, Congress is currently excercising just that.

 dogma wrote:
Anyway, the agency whose purpose is to enforce the tax code is always going to be, ultimately, responsible for determining whether or not a particular group qualifies for a particular sort of tax status. That's an inevitable consequence of bureaucracy.

 sebster wrote:

 dogma wrote:
Anyway, the agency whose purpose is to enforce the tax code is always going to be, ultimately, responsible for determining whether or not a particular group qualifies for a particular sort of tax status. That's an inevitable consequence of bureaucracy.

That's actually not true, you can have a third party grant charity status. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, that's how it works here in Oz right now.

Not that that looks like any reform like that will happen in the US, but the IRS being the body that decides if charity status is met isn't how it has to be.

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Why did Lerner plead the 5th?

Why hasn't the DoJ/FBI actually, you know, interview any of the targeted groups? If nothing else, to document their statements at the very least?

Why and what were the details of Lerner and other officials using unsanctioned email accounts in discussing IRS business?

None of that is evidence. Its gossip used for speculation.

True... and theoretically, a Republican adminstration could pull this gak. It's still bad.

Huh? There's as much scope in that law to pick out only Republican groups or only Liberal groups as there is to pick out individual tax payers based on their political allegiances.

Now it sounds like you're objecting to the idea that there should be any kind of process to investigate and decide what groups are charities, because it might possibly be used politically.

I'm not quite sure I understand what you're asking?

Can you state another instance in which a person used straw donors to avoid the $5,000 limit on donations, but was not prosecuted? Because if the law is selective... then you should be able to pick out another instance of the same thing happening, that the prosecution passed on.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Of course it's a legitimate operation. So where's the Checks & Balances to ensure that the process is grounded? OH! Yeah, Congress is currently excercising just that.

There's approximately 12 million different congressional oversight groups that looks in to IRS operations.

And, you know, it isn't as though this IRS scandal has just gone quietly in to the night. Even if there was some IRS oppression on Tea Party groups that had been initiated by Obama himself, do you really think given the media blow out any president would want to try anything like it again?

 whembly wrote:
Seb... slow down bro.

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Why did Lerner plead the 5th?

Fact. She did plead the 5th.

Why hasn't the DoJ/FBI actually, you know, interview any of the targeted groups? If nothing else, to document their statements at the very least?

Fact and more recent Fact. Lawyers for plaintiff has been saying this for a few months now.

Why and what were the details of Lerner and other officials using unsanctioned email accounts in discussing IRS business?

Fact. <--- actual email evidenced that Congress received.

None of that is evidence. Its gossip used for speculation.

Not "gossip" Seb.

True... and theoretically, a Republican adminstration could pull this gak. It's still bad.

Huh? There's as much scope in that law to pick out only Republican groups or only Liberal groups as there is to pick out individual tax payers based on their political allegiances.

Now it sounds like you're objecting to the idea that there should be any kind of process to investigate and decide what groups are charities, because it might possibly be used politically.

Nah, I'm only objecting the targeting. Organizations like Media Matters Action Network got rubber stamped.

I'm not quite sure I understand what you're asking?

Can you state another instance in which a person used straw donors to avoid the $5,000 limit on donations, but was not prosecuted? Because if the law is selective... then you should be able to pick out another instance of the same thing happening, that the prosecution passed on.

The law itself isn't selective, it's called "prosecutorial discretion". Alan Dershowitz believes this is a prime example.

Basically, the issue is that laws and regulation need to be enforced neutrally, across the board, or we need to be free of them.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Of course it's a legitimate operation. So where's the Checks & Balances to ensure that the process is grounded? OH! Yeah, Congress is currently excercising just that.

There's approximately 12 million different congressional oversight groups that looks in to IRS operations.

And, you know, it isn't as though this IRS scandal has just gone quietly in to the night. Even if there was some IRS oppression on Tea Party groups that had been initiated by Obama himself, do you really think given the media blow out any president would want to try anything like it again?

I really believe Obama didn't order it... I believe it's his Chicago upper-level minions perpetuating this. But, you're right... hopefully there's enough heat now such that future adminstrations (of any party) thinks twice to pulling this again.

 whembly wrote:

Huh? My understanding is that the IRS/Treasury could implement this regulatory change...

 whembly wrote:

Exactly.

 whembly wrote:

Huh? Are you implying that these were in the works to be addressed?

 whembly wrote:

Seriously?

What damange? o.O

 Alexzandvar wrote:
\
Since you have seen fit to claim so many times that I in my ignorance have not read your links I think it is only right I call you out for not reading the article I linked you.

This. Is. Poison. And. Trash.

What I highlighted is the exact problem with your act, you don't give a flying about who you hurt when you say crap like that. Especially since it seems to only concern you as far as you and the right wing media can push in your political agenda to basically hamstring future president's.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt though, and a chance to read the article again: http://themittani.com/news/playboy-vile-rat

And if that doesn't work, let me spell it out for you: The kind of thing you do is not only destructive to just family's, but to friends, and many more. Have you ever stopped to think in your crusade against the IRS that this probably lost a lot of people who never did anything wrong their job? That there are people suffering right now because you and the media took was at worst a misinterpretation and turned it into something that destroyed a bunch of peoples lives in the name of false accountability.

 sebster wrote:


That's actually not true, you can have a third party grant charity status. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, that's how it works here in Oz right now.

Not that that looks like any reform like that will happen in the US, but the IRS being the body that decides if charity status is met isn't how it has to be.

 whembly wrote:
Not "gossip" Seb.

Nah, I'm only objecting the targeting. Organizations like Media Matters Action Network got rubber stamped.

The law itself isn't selective, it's called "prosecutorial discretion". Alan Dershowitz believes this is a prime example.

Basically, the issue is that laws and regulation need to be enforced neutrally, across the board, or we need to be free of them.

I really believe Obama didn't order it... I believe it's his Chicago upper-level minions perpetuating this. But, you're right... hopefully there's enough heat now such that future adminstrations (of any party) thinks twice to pulling this again.

 dogma wrote:
By charity do you mean NPO? Because presently, in the US, there are NPOs that are not charities, and NPOs to which certain forms of contributions are not considered charitable; rendering many such contributions non-deductible.

The point being that, while it is certainly possible and you were right to call me on my lack of precision, in the US the amount of legal work required to do what you describe is extreme.

 whembly wrote:

 Alexzandvar wrote:
\
Since you have seen fit to claim so many times that I in my ignorance have not read your links I think it is only right I call you out for not reading the article I linked you.

This. Is. Poison. And. Trash.

What I highlighted is the exact problem with your act, you don't give a flying about who you hurt when you say crap like that. Especially since it seems to only concern you as far as you and the right wing media can push in your political agenda to basically hamstring future president's.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt though, and a chance to read the article again: http://themittani.com/news/playboy-vile-rat

And if that doesn't work, let me spell it out for you: The kind of thing you do is not only destructive to just family's, but to friends, and many more. Have you ever stopped to think in your crusade against the IRS that this probably lost a lot of people who never did anything wrong their job? That there are people suffering right now because you and the media took was at worst a misinterpretation and turned it into something that destroyed a bunch of peoples lives in the name of false accountability.

This is such a load of horse gak... it needs to be placed on a pedestal somewhere.

 sebster wrote:
The tax law can be changed to read 'classified by the duly authorised body'. And what resources the IRS used to monitor these groups could be assigned to that other party, albeit with a likely amount of efficiency as the relationship with the new organisation will not be adversarial.

Opposition to proposed new Internal Revenue Service restrictions on political activity by “social welfare” nonprofits is growing, and is crossing ideological lines, according to The New York Times.

The American Civil Liberties Union and other left-leaning organizations are voicing objections to Obama administration’s plan to more specifically define what constitutes impermissible electioneering by 501(c)(4) groups, saying it would crack down on all manner of political engagement, not just activity benefiting a particular candidate.

Congressional Republicans have vociferously opposed the changes, introducing legislation this week to require a one-year delay in implementation and calling on the White House to abandon the rule, which GOP leaders claim is aimed at quelling conservative groups. Campaign-finance watchdog groups are backing the reform, calling it a first step in regulating the flood of “dark money” into the campaign process.

The IRS said it has received more than 23,000 comments, a record for an agency proposal, ahead of a Feb. 27 deadline for the public to air views on the proposal.

The Times also published an information graphic showing how IRS rules on nonprofit politicking have been interpreted by courts and the tax agency since the early 2000s.

 dogma wrote:
It seems to me that such a transfer would likely be quite adversarial, and I assume that is what you meant to indicate; especially if it involved non-federal organizations.

 whembly wrote:
Liberals and Conservatives Object to IRS Rule on Nonprofit Politicking

House Oversight Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) is hauling Lois Lerner back to Congress.

Issa told Lerner’s attorney in a Tuesday letter that he expected the retired IRS official to appear before his committee on March 5.

Lerner, the official at the center of the IRS targeting controversy, invoked her Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination at a May 2013 hearing, just days after she apologized for the agency’s treatment of Tea Party groups.

But the Oversight Committee later ruled that Lerner waived her rights by making an opening statement, setting the stage for her recall next week.

In his letter to William Taylor, Lerner’s attorney, Issa said that her testimony “remains critical to this committee’s investigation.”

“Because the committee explicitly rejected her Fifth Amendment privilege claim, I expect her to provide answers when the hearing reconvenes on March 5,” Issa wrote.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
No, she still has her rights, and the oversight committee can't legally drag her back.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
No, she still has her rights, and the oversight committee can't legally drag her back.

Atcually that depends. She did say a fair bit. Thats why lawyerrs say just shut up.

If I were her I'd show up in an Uncle Sam outfit, complete with sparkly red white and blue hat.
When asked any question I'd reply alternatively with "I already pled the 5th " and "assphinctersayswhat?"

 Frazzled wrote:
No she has to show up. Congress has subpeona powers. Answering anything is another matter.

At least show up in a Groucho Marx outfit. Come on...

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
No she has to show up. Congress has subpeona powers. Answering anything is another matter.

At least show up in a Groucho Marx outfit. Come on...

True, they can but I just doubt anything would really happen to her if she didn't. That was my point. It would be bad PR.

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
No she has to show up. Congress has subpeona powers. Answering anything is another matter.

At least show up in a Groucho Marx outfit. Come on...

True, they can but I just doubt anything would really happen to her if she didn't. That was my point. It would be bad PR.

It's the midterms...surprised?

There's even a conference committee to discuss impeachment at House Hearing on President’s duty to execute the law...

Yep... midterms are coming.

The 'smoking gun' in the targeting of conservative groups has been hiding in plain sight.

he mainstream press has justified its lack of coverage over the Internal Revenue Service targeting of conservative groups because there's been no "smoking gun" tying President Obama to the scandal. This betrays a remarkable, if not willful, failure to understand abuse of power. The political pressure on the IRS to delay or deny tax-exempt status for conservative groups has been obvious to anyone who cares to open his eyes. It did not come from a direct order from the White House, but it didn't have to.

First, some background: On Jan. 21, 2010, the Supreme Court issued its ruling in Citizens United v. FEC upholding the right of corporations and unions to make independent expenditures in political races. Then, on March 26, relying on Citizens United, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the rights of persons (including corporations) to pool resources for political purposes. This allowed the creation of "super PACs" as well as corporate contributions to groups organized under Section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code that spend in political races.

The reaction to Citizens United was no secret. Various news outlets such as CNN noted that "Democrats fear the decision has given the traditionally pro-business GOP a powerful new advantage."

The 501(c)(4) groups in question are officially known as "social-welfare organizations." They have for decades been permitted to engage in political activity under IRS rules, so long as their primary purpose (generally understood to be more than 50% of their activity) wasn't political. They are permitted to lobby without limitation and are not required to disclose their donors. The groups span the political spectrum, from the National Rifle Association to Common Cause to the Planned Parenthood Action Fund. If forced out of 501(c)(4) status, these nonprofit advocacy groups would have to reorganize as for-profit corporations and pay taxes on donations received, or reorganize as "political committees" under Section 527 of the IRS Code and be forced to disclose their donors.

Now consider the following events, all of which were either widely reported, publicly released by officeholders or revealed later in testimony to Congress. These are the dots the media refuse to connect:

• Jan. 27, 2010: President Obama criticizes Citizens United in his State of the Union address and asks Congress to "correct" the decision.

• Feb. 11, 2010: Sen. Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) says he will introduce legislation known as the Disclose Act to place new restrictions on some political activity by corporations and force more public disclosure of contributions to 501(c)(4) organizations. Mr. Schumer says the bill is intended to "embarrass companies" out of exercising the rights recognized in Citizens United. "The deterrent effect should not be underestimated," he said.

• Soon after, in March 2010, Mr. Obama publicly criticizes conservative 501(c)(4) organizations engaging in politics. In his Aug. 21 radio address, he warns Americans about "shadowy groups with harmless sounding names" and a "corporate takeover of our democracy."

• Sept. 28, 2010: Mr. Obama publicly accuses conservative 501(c)(4) organizations of "posing as not-for-profit, social welfare and trade groups." Max Baucus, then chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, asks the IRS to investigate 501(c)(4)s, specifically citing Americans for Job Security, an advocacy group that says its role is to "put forth a pro-growth, pro-jobs message to the American people."

• Oct. 11, 2010: Sen. Dick Durbin (D., Ill.) asks the IRS to investigate the conservative 501(c)(4) Crossroads GPS and "other organizations."

• April 2011: White House officials confirm that Mr. Obama is considering an executive order that would require all government contractors to disclose their donations to politically active organizations as part of their bids for government work. The proposal is later dropped amid opposition across the political spectrum.

• Feb. 16, 2012: Seven Democratic senators— Michael Bennet (Colo.), Al Franken (Minn.), Jeff Merkley (Ore.), Mr. Schumer, Jeanne Shaheen (N.H.), Tom Udall (N.M.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.)—write to the IRS asking for an investigation of conservative 501(c)(4) organizations.

• March 12, 2012: The same seven Democrats write another letter asking for further investigation of conservative 501(c)(4)s, claiming abuse of their tax status.

• July 27, 2012: Sen. Carl Levin (D., Mich.) writes one of several letters to then-IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman seeking a probe of nine conservative groups, plus two liberal and one centrist organization. In 2013 testimony to the HouseOversight and Government Reform Committee, former IRS Acting Commissioner Steven Miller describes Sen. Levin as complaining "bitterly" to the IRS and demanding investigations.

• Aug. 31, 2012: In another letter to the IRS, Sen. Levin calls its failure to investigate and prosecute targeted organizations "unacceptable."

• Dec. 14, 2012: The liberal media outlet ProPublica receives Crossroads GPS's 2010 application for tax-exempt status from the IRS. Because the group's tax-exempt status had not been recognized, the application was confidential. ProPublica publishes the full application. It later reports that it received nine confidential pending applications from IRS agents, six of which it published. None of the applications was from a left-leaning organization.

• April 9, 2013: Sen. Whitehouse convenes the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism to examine nonprofits. He alleges that nonprofits are violating federal law by making false statements about their political activities and donors and using shell companies to donate to super PACs to hide donors' identities. He berates Patricia Haynes, then-deputy chief of Criminal Investigation at the IRS, for not prosecuting conservative nonprofits.

• May 10, 2013: Sen. Levin announces that the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations will hold hearings on "the IRS's failure to enforce the law requiring that tax-exempt 501(c)(4)s be engaged exclusively in social welfare activities, not partisan politics." Three days later he postpones the hearings when Lois Lerner (then-director of the IRS Exempt Organizations Division) reveals that the IRS had been targeting and delaying the applications of conservative groups applying for tax-exempt status.

• Nov. 29, 2013: The IRS proposes new rules redefining "political activity" to include activities such as voter-registration drives and the production of nonpartisan legislative scorecards to restrict what the agency deems as excessive spending on campaigns by tax-exempt 501(c)(4) groups. Even many liberal nonprofits argue that the rule goes too far in limiting their political activity—but the main target appears to be the conservative 501(c)(4)s that have so irritated Democrats.

• Feb. 13, 2014: The Hill newspaper reports that "Senate Democrats facing tough elections this year want the Internal Revenue Service to play a more aggressive role in regulating outside groups expected to spend millions of dollars on their races."

In 1170, King Henry II is said to have cried out, on hearing of the latest actions of the Archbishop of Canterbury, "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?" Four knights then murdered the archbishop. Many in the U.S. media still willfully refuse to see anything connecting the murder of the archbishop to any actions or abuse of power by the king.

Lois Lerner fears for her life if she testifies openly before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Wednesday, according to her attorney.

House oversight committee chairman Rep. Darrell Issa announced Sunday that Lerner will testify at Wednesday’s hearing, but Lerner’s attorney Bill Taylor said that Lerner will seek to continue invoking her Fifth Amendment rights and will also seek a one-week delay of her testimony.

Oversight members are reportedly open to granting Lerner a one-week delay if she petitions for one in person at Wednesday’s hearing. The delay would allow Lerner’s lawyers to continue negotiating for immunity, which they have been doing since at least September.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Wait, what? Is there some credible threat of bodily harm to her? If so from whom?

...
“Lerner set off the matter last year when she acknowledged IRS officials gave added scrutiny to conservative groups, leading President Barack Obama to fire the acting IRS commissioner and giving the agency a major black eye.”
...

 whembly wrote:
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/03/irs-hearing-lois-lerner-contempt-john-boehner-104287.html

...
“Lerner set off the matter last year when she acknowledged IRS officials gave added scrutiny to conservative groups, leading President Barack Obama to fire the acting IRS commissioner and giving the agency a major black eye.”
...

If this was such an outrageous “phony scandal.” Why is Lerner taking the 5th?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

I agree with you Whembly, this is just the latest in a long line of distractions. I say just give her full immunity on the condition that she disclose everything, anything held back voiding the deal.

 whembly wrote:

If this was such an outrageous “phony scandal.” Why is Lerner taking the 5th?

 whembly wrote:
Did you not read the letters I posted about 4 posts up?

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Did you not read the letters I posted about 4 posts up?

Yes, I did. I don't see a legal problem.

It appears the IRS acted within the letter of law, and Lois Lerner is being used as scapegoat and means of generating political support in certain areas.

 whembly wrote:

I disagree with that premise, as you know.

 Ouze wrote:
This case will be Obama's Benghazi.

 whembly wrote:

@dogma, if you believe that the IRS were right within the laws, why did that admit they were wrong?

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

@dogma, if you believe that the IRS were right within the laws, why did that admit they were wrong?

The same reason an organization would agree to settlement of a lawsuit while maintaining innocence. They wanted to deal with the controversy and move on.

I mean, the IRS never claimed anything they did was illegal.

 whembly wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

@dogma, if you believe that the IRS were right within the laws, why did that admit they were wrong?

The same reason an organization would agree to settlement of a lawsuit while maintaining innocence. They wanted to deal with the controversy and move on.

I mean, the IRS never claimed anything they did was illegal.

Doing something that was wrong/improper doesn't necessarily mean that it's "illegal".

You being very pedantic with that statement.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

@dogma, if you believe that the IRS were right within the laws, why did that admit they were wrong?

The same reason an organization would agree to settlement of a lawsuit while maintaining innocence. They wanted to deal with the controversy and move on.

I mean, the IRS never claimed anything they did was illegal.

Doing something that was wrong/improper doesn't necessarily mean that it's "illegal".

You being very pedantic with that statement.

Except that the whole idea of this being a "scandal" is predicated upon the IRS having done something illegal.

 whembly wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

@dogma, if you believe that the IRS were right within the laws, why did that admit they were wrong?

The same reason an organization would agree to settlement of a lawsuit while maintaining innocence. They wanted to deal with the controversy and move on.

I mean, the IRS never claimed anything they did was illegal.

Doing something that was wrong/improper doesn't necessarily mean that it's "illegal".

You being very pedantic with that statement.

Except that the whole idea of this being a "scandal" is predicated upon the IRS having done something illegal.

Right... hence the investigation brah.

In IRS letter (PDF) published by Progress Texas online Thursday showed the liberal group was given 22 days to respond to a list of 21 questions. Some of the questions included up to nine sub-questions.

The questions resembled the list of 35 questions (PDF) sent to the Liberty Township Tea Party, which has complained of IRS harassment.

Though the line of questioning was generally the same, there were some key differences between the lists of questions.

The Liberty Township Tea Party was asked to provide copies of all its activity on Facebook and Twitter, while the Progress Texas was not. The Liberty Township Tea Party was asked for more specific information about the employment background of its officials, including copies of resumes, while Progress Texas was asked for more general information. The tea party group was also asked whether any of its officials had served on the board of another organization or planned to run for office.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Whatever, Whembly.

Keep on manufacturing that outrage! Rabble rabble rabble!

 whembly wrote:

Doing something that was wrong/improper doesn't necessarily mean that it's "illegal".

You being very pedantic with that statement.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Doing something that was wrong/improper doesn't necessarily mean that it's "illegal".

You being very pedantic with that statement.

No, I'm being precise and I honestly do not see how you can support the punishment of people who upheld the law they were employed to enforce.

Absent the leaked donor list, it does not appear that anyone at the IRS did anything legally wrong.

This investigation has become a congressional witch hunt, thanks largely to people like you, designed to build political capital without actually addressing the fundamental problems with the tax code.

 whembly wrote:

You'd be okay with that?

 whembly wrote:

What do you mean, "you people"?

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

You'd be okay with that?

Yes, I said as much in the other IRS thread.

Though I'll also add that you're dodging the point about this investigation doing nothing to correct the problems with the tax code.

 whembly wrote:

What do you mean, "you people"?

People that latch onto one side of a scandal and push it stridently.

 whembly wrote:

The investigation is to figure out what really happened. That's kinda the point dogma.

 whembly wrote:

Okay... dogma, you keep believing that.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

The investigation is to figure out what really happened. That's kinda the point dogma.

So you have no interest in correcting the problems with the tax code?

I mean, you're telling me that you have a problem with the IRS enforcing (and correcting) the tax code, but you don't seem to be interested in Congress correcting it. Really, you only seem interested in punishing IRS employees. As such you seem to prioritize vindiction over progress, at least in this case.

 whembly wrote:

Okay... dogma, you keep believing that.

I will! I believe it is congruous with reality.

 whembly wrote:

Of course I fething want it fixed.

 whembly wrote:

But in order to truly fix it, we need to know what happened and why.

 whembly wrote:

Yeah... in dogma's "world".

The Internal Revenue Service has agreed to turn over emails and other documents from Lois Lerner, a core player in the agency’s targeting controversy, the House Ways and Means Committee said Friday.

Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp (R-Mich.) threatened last month to subpoena those documents after criticizing the IRS for failing to comply with his request.
“This is a significant step forward and will help us complete our investigation into the IRS’s targeting of conservative groups,” Camp said in a statement.

The announcement comes just days after Lerner, the IRS official who first acknowledged the IRS’s improper scrutiny of Tea Party groups in May, for the second time invoked her Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination before the House Oversight Committee.

But instead of Lerner’s return dominating headlines, as Republicans had hoped, a quarrel between that panel’s chairman, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), and its top Democrat, Rep. Elijah Cummings (Md.), received most of the attention.

Democrats have stressed that the IRS has already turned over more than 500,000 pages worth of documents and say none of them show any link between the agency’s actions and the White House.

New IRS Commissioner John Koskinen has pledged to do whatever he can to help Congress finish off its investigation of his agency.

Republicans have increasingly acknowledged that Lerner is likely central to their investigation. Lerner’s lawyer, Bill Taylor, has maintained that Congress is unlikely to ever hear her testimony, placing even more importance on Lerner’s emails and documents.

Camp has requested all of Lerner’s emails since 2009 and complained the IRS had only turned over Lerner’s emails that dealt with determining whether a group was eligible for tax-exempt status.

Republicans have also been sharply critical of new proposed federal rules governing those groups, and are interested in any role Lerner might have played in seeking new regulations.

“From the few Lerner documents we have received, we know that Washington, D.C., orchestrated the targeting of groups applying for tax-exempt status, surveillance of existing tax-exempt groups and formed the proposed 501(c)(4) rules designed to push conservative groups out of the public forum,” Camp said Friday.

“The remaining documents are key to determining the level of wrong doing and deception committed by this agency.”

 Kanluwen wrote:
When the "request" is for basically 'anything that might kinda/sorta have relevance maybe?', that's a fishing expedition.

It's a favored tactic of Republicans, at all levels of government.

 Breotan wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
When the "request" is for basically 'anything that might kinda/sorta have relevance maybe?', that's a fishing expedition.

It's a favored tactic of Republicans, at all levels of government.

Because Democrats never do this? Seriously?

 whembly wrote:
Not sure if they'll find anything as it took them over 8 months since the initial request... lots of time to subvert, erm shred evidence...

On May 12, 2013, the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) released a report that found that the Exempt Organizations (EO) division of the IRS inappropriately targeted “Tea Party” and other conservative applicants for tax-exempt status and subjected them to heightened scrutiny.3 This additional scrutiny resulted in extended delays that, in most cases, sidelined applicants during the 2012 election cycle, in spite of their Constitutional right to participate. Meanwhile, the majority of liberal and left-leaning 501(c)(4) applicants won approval.4

Documents and information obtained by the Committee since the release of the TIGTA report show that Lois G. Lerner, the now-retired Director of IRS Exempt Organizations (EO), was extensively involved in targeting conservative-oriented tax-exempt applicants for inappropriate scrutiny. This report details her role in the targeting of conservative-oriented organizations, which would later result in some level of increased scrutiny of applicants from across the political spectrum. It also outlines her obstruction of the Committee’s investigation.

Prior to joining the IRS, Lerner was the Associate General Counsel and Head of the Enforcement Office at the Federal Elections Commission (FEC).5 During her tenure at the FEC, she also engaged in questionable tactics to target conservative groups seeking to expand their political involvement, often subjecting them to heightened scrutiny.6 Her political ideology was evident to her FEC colleagues. She brazenly subjected Republican groups to rigorous investigations. Similar Democratic groups did not receive the same scrutiny.7

The Committee’s investigation of Lerner’s role in the IRS’s targeting of tax-exempt organizations found that she led efforts to scrutinize conservative groups while working to maintain a veneer of objective enforcement. Following the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the IRS faced pressure from voices on the left to heighten scrutiny of applicants for tax-exempt status. IRS EO employees in Cincinnati identified the first Tea Party applicants and promptly forwarded these applications to IRS headquarters in Washington, D.C. for further guidance. Officials in Washington, D.C. directed IRS employees in Cincinnati to isolate Tea Party applicants even though the IRS had not developed a process for approving their applications.

While IRS employees were screening applications, documents show that Lerner and other senior officials contemplated concerns about the “hugely influential Koch brothers,” and that Lerner advised her IRS colleagues that her unit should “do a c4 project next year” focusing on existing organizations.8 Lerner even showed her recognition that such an effort would approach dangerous ground and would have to be engineered as not a “per se political project.”9 Underscoring a political bias against the lawful activity of such groups, Lerner referenced the political pressure on the IRS to “fix the problem” of 501(c)(4) groups engaging in political speech at an event sponsored by Duke University’s Sanford School of Public Policy.10

Lerner not only proposed ways for the IRS to scrutinize groups with 501(c)(4) status, but also helped implement and manage hurdles that hindered and delayed the approval of groups applying for 501(c)(4) status. In early 2011, Lerner directed the manager of the IRS’s EO Technical Unit to subject Tea Party cases to a “multi-tier review” system.11 She characterized these Tea Party cases as “very dangerous,” and believed that the Chief Counsel’s office should “be in on” the review process.12 Lerner was extensively involved in handling the Tea Party cases—from directing the review process to receiving periodic status updates.13 Other IRS employees would later testify that the level of scrutiny Lerner ordered for the Tea Party cases was unprecedented.14

Eventually, Lerner became uncomfortable with the burgeoning number of conservative organizations facing immensely heightened scrutiny from a purportedly apolitical agency. Consistent with her past concerns that scrutiny could not be “per se political,” she ordered the implementation of a new screening method. Without doing anything to inform applicants that they had been subject to inappropriate treatment, this sleight of hand added a level of deniability for the IRS that officials would eventually use to dismiss accusations of political motivations – she broadened the spectrum of groups that would be scrutinized going forward.

When Congress asked Lerner about a shift in criteria, she flatly denied it along with allegations about disparate treatment.15 Even as targeting continued, Lerner engaged in a surreptitious discussion about an “off-plan” effort to restrict the right of existing 501(c)(4) applicants to participate in the political process through new regulations made outside established protocols for disclosing new regulatory action.16 E-mails obtained by the Committee show she and other seemingly like-minded IRS employees even discussed how, if an aggrieved Tea Party applicant were to file suit, the IRS might get the chance to showcase the scrutiny it had applied to conservative applicants.17 IRS officials seemed to envision a potential lawsuit as an expedient vehicle for bypassing federal laws that protect the anonymity of applicants denied tax exempt status.18 Lerner surmised that Tea Party groups would indeed opt for litigation because, in her mind, they were “itching for a Constitutional challenge.”19

Through e-mails, documents, and the testimony of other IRS officials, the Committee has learned a great deal about Lois Lerner’s role in the IRS targeting scandal since the Committee first issued a subpoena for her testimony. She was keenly aware of acute political pressure to crack down on conservative-leaning organizations. Not only did she seek to convey her agreement with this sentiment publicly, she went so far as to engage in a wholly inappropriate effort to circumvent federal prohibitions in order to publicize her efforts to crack down on a particular Tea Party applicant. She created unprecedented roadblocks for Tea Party organizations, worked surreptitiously to advance new Obama Administration regulations that curtail the activities of existing 501(c)(4) organizations – all the while attempting to maintain an appearance that her efforts did not appear, in her own words, “per se political.”

Lerner’s testimony remains critical to the Committee’s investigation. E-mails dated shortly before the public disclosure of the targeting scandal show Lerner engaging with higher ranking officials behind the scenes in an attempt to spin the imminent release of the TIGTA report.20 Documents and testimony provided by the IRS point to her as the instigator of the IRS’s efforts to crack down on 501(c)(4) organizations and the singularly most relevant official in the IRS targeting scandal. Her unwillingness to testify deprives Congress the opportunity to have her explain her conduct, hear her response to personal criticisms levied by her IRS coworkers, and provide vital context regarding the actions of other IRS officials. In a recent interview, President Obama broadly asserted that there is not even a “smidgeon of corruption” in the IRS targeting scandal.21 15 Briefing by IRS staff to Committee staff (Feb. 24, 2012); see Letter from Darrell Issa & Jim Jordan, H. Comm. on
Oversight & Gov’t Reform, to Lois Lerner, IRS (May 14, 2013). If this is true, Lois Lerner should be willing to return to Congress to testify about her actions. The public needs a full accounting of what occurred and who was involved. Through its investigation, the Committee seeks to ensure that government officials are never in a position to abuse the public trust by depriving Americans of their Constitutional right to participate in our democracy, regardless of their political beliefs. This is the only way to restore confidence in the IRS.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
So it seems that there is merit to the accusations against her, and that she has previous form

— Lerner, in emails to other IRS officials, wrote about ways to highlight the agency's scrutiny of Tea Party applicants, despite secrecy laws, by provoking groups to challenge IRS rulings in a court case.

— She called for a Washington, D.C.-based, “multi-tier review” for Tea Party groups applying for tax exempt status. “A D.C. IRS employee said this level of scrutiny had no precedent,” the report notes.

— Lerner references “the fabulously rich and hugely influential” Koch brothers, who are GOP donors, in asserting that the agency needed to cautiously conduct a “project” scrutinizing groups seeking 501(c)(4) tax exempt status. The code references the tax exempt category conservative and Tea Party groups were requesting from the IRS.

— Lerner broke IRS rules by using her personal email account to handle protected taxpayer information.

— Lerner expressed concern that the Supreme Court ruling leading to the increase of 501(c)(4) tax-exempt groups would hurt Democratic senators seeking re-election in 2012. The IRS was expected to fix the problem, Lerner wrote.

“The Supreme Court dealt a huge blow, overturning a 100-year old precedent that basically corporations couldn't give directly to political campaigns,” Lerner wrote. “And everyone is up in arms because they don't like it. The Federal Election Commission can't do anything about it. They want the IRS to fix the problem.”

 whembly wrote:

Read the whole thing... they even argues why they believe she waived her 5th.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Read the whole thing... they even argues why they believe she waived her 5th.

Still sounds like a witch-hunt to me, and her counsel still disputes the notion she waived her 5th amendment rights.

 whembly wrote:

Of course... he's her counsel. Duh.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Of course... he's her counsel. Duh.

Why, in this case, is Lois Lerner's counsel less trustworthy than the assembled counsel that produced the report? Because they were "assembled counsel"? Or is it, perhaps, because they were employed by politicians on your side of this debate?

 whembly wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Of course... he's her counsel. Duh.

Why, in this case, is Lois Lerner's counsel less trustworthy than the assembled counsel that produced the report? Because they were "assembled counsel"? Or is it, perhaps, because they were employed by politicians on your side of this debate?

Irrelevant...

My point is he's her defense counsel and of course he's saying she did not revoke her 5th amendment.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Of course... he's her counsel. Duh.

Why, in this case, is Lois Lerner's counsel less trustworthy than the assembled counsel that produced the report? Because they were "assembled counsel"? Or is it, perhaps, because they were employed by politicians on your side of this debate?

Irrelevant...

That does not mean what you think it means. Saying "irrelevant" does not mean that this simply goes away, Whembly.

My point is he's her defense counsel and of course he's saying she did not revoke her 5th amendment.

And Dogma's point is that the counsel that produced the report should be viewed in the same light. Both sides have an agenda to support. So why are you acting as though there is some kind of difference?

 Kanluwen wrote:
You made the point that it the lawyer is "her defense counsel and of course he's saying she did not revoke her 5th amendment".


Not Dogma. That's on you. If you're going to act as though that somehow tarnishes his credibility(which is not an unreasonable inference from the statement of "he is her defense counsel and of course he's saying she did not revoke her 5th amendment"), then you need to apply the same level of skepticism to the team of assembled counsel that are working for Congress.

A lot has happened since former Internal Revenue Service Exempt Organizations head Lois Lerner refused to testify in May 2013 about the agency’s targeting of the Tea Party and other 501(c)4 organizations, asserting her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

For starters, it turns out the scandal goes much higher than was originally stated.

Holly Paz, managing director at the D.C.-based IRS technical office, has testified that, in February 2010, “a case was identified where there was potential for political campaign activity, and that was when they reached out to Washington and the case was transferred to Washington.”

Paz said she then forwarded it to agency tax specialist and lawyer Carter Hull, who developed many of the invasive follow-up questions that attempted to probe just how political groups intended to be.

Michael Seto, the head of Hull’s unit, said it was Lerner who ordered that the Tea Party applications be subjected to special scrutiny.

In addition, Hull said that when he met with Lerner’s senior adviser, he was told that his recommendations on the Tea Party applications would be first reviewed by the IRS general counsel William Wilkins, only one of two political appointments in the agency besides the commissioner.

Hull’s supervisor Ronald Shoemaker told investigators that the counsel’s office wanted information about the applicants’ political activities leading up to the 2010 election.

So, what began as a scandal with supposedly “low-level” employees in Cincinnati actually goes all the way to Washington, with the then-head of Exempt Organizations and the agency’s general counsel not only aware of the targeting but coordinating its decision-making process.

And yet, the targeting might not have been criminal after all, or so says the Department of Justice, which according to The Wall Street Journal is not planning on filing charges.

Giving the benefit of the doubt — that there is nothing in the U.S. Code that prohibits the sort of targeting that took place, even though one of the articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon was “to cause, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, income tax audits or other income tax investigation to be initiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner” — then why did Lois Lerner even bother pleading the Fifth back in May and again this week?

If there was no criminal activity, in principle, then Lerner cannot incriminate herself. Lerner said it herself before the House Oversight Committee: “I have not broken any laws.” ...

Lerner is running out of excuses. So maybe she just needs to come clean, fess up and be done with it. Or be found in contempt of Congress and face even more consequences.

Question: On a scale of 1-10, 1 being no damage and 10 being permanent long range damage, how much have the IRS and tax administration been damaged by the current IRS scandal? (And I would append to that the question: was it a scandal?)

Donald Korb (Partner, Sullivan & Cromwell; former IRS Chief Counsel): I think it is incredibly damaging. Frankly, I see it as one of the seeds of the next tax shelter era. ... And in terms of scandal, I don't think we really know. We have not been permitted to understand exactly what happened. So, who knows.

George Yin (Edwin S. Cohen Distinguished Professor of Law and Taxation, Virginia; former Chief of Staff, Joint Committee on Taxation): I think there has been tremendous damage. Almost without regard to what actually happened. And I actually despair of finding out what actually happened. ...

Donald Tobin (Frank E. and Virginia H. Bazler Designated Professor in Business Law, Ohio State): I think it is awful. I agree with Don and George. 7 or 8. I think this is ultimately going to have huge implications. ...

Ellen Aprill (John E. Anderson Chair in Tax Law, Loyola-L.A.): I agree with all of that. I have myself avoided the word "scandal" because I just don't know. And some of the people I know personally. I don't think that was their political motivation. So I've used "controversy" and "brouhaha" and everything but tried not to go all the way to scandal. ...

Korb: ... This is very, very damaging. Maybe we are at a 9.5

New IRS emails released by the House Oversight Committee show staff working for Democratic Ranking Member Elijah Cummings communicated with the IRS multiple times between 2012 and 2013 about voter fraud prevention group True the Vote. True the Vote was targeted by the IRS after applying for tax exempt status more than two years ago. Further, information shows the IRS and Cummings' staff asked for nearly identical information from True the Vote President Catherine Engelbrecht about her organization, indicating coordination and improper sharing of confidential taxpayer information.

Chairman of the House Oversight Committee Darrell Issa, along with five Subcommittee Chairmen are demanding Cummings provide an explanation for the staff inquiries to the IRS about True the Vote and for his denial that his staff ever contacted the IRS about the group.

“Although you have previously denied that your staff made inquiries to the IRS about conservative organization True the Vote that may have led to additional agency scrutiny, communication records between your staff and IRS officials – which you did not disclose to Majority Members or staff – indicates otherwise,” the letter to Cummings states. “As the Committee is scheduled to consider a resolution holding Ms. Lerner, a participant in responding to your communications that you failed to disclose, in contempt of Congress, you have an obligation to fully explain your staff’s undisclosed contacts with the IRS.”

The first contact between the IRS and Cummings' staffers about True the Vote happened in August 2012. In January 2013, staff asked for more information from the IRS about the group. Former head of tax exempt groups at the IRS Lois Lerner went out of her way to try and get information to Cummings' office.The information Cummings received was not shared with Majority Members on the Committee.

On January 28, three days after staffers requested more information, Lerner wrote an email to her deputy Holly Paz, who has since been put on administrative leave, asking, “Did we find anything?” Paz responded immediately by saying information had not been found yet, to which Lerner replied, “Thanks, check tomorrow please.”

On January 31, Paz sent True the Vote's 990 forms to Cumming's staff.

Up until this point, Rep. Cummings has denied his staff ever contacted the IRS about True the Vote and their activities during Oversight hearings. In fact, on February 6, 2014 during a Subcommittee hearing where Engelbrecht testified, Cummings vehemently denied having any contact or coordination in targeting True the Vote when attorney Cleta Mitchell, who is representing the group, indicated staff on the Committee had been involved in communication with the IRS. This was the exchange:

Ms. Mitchell: We want to get to the bottom of how these coincidences happened, and we’re going to try to figure out whether any – if there was any staff of this committee that might have been involved in putting True the Vote on the radar screen of some of these Federal agencies. We don’t know that, but we – we’re going to do everything we can do to try to get to the bottom of how did this all happen.

Mr. Cummings. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Meadows. Yes.

Mr. Cummings. I want to thank the gentleman for his courtesy. What she just said is absolutely incorrect and not true.

After the hearing, Engelbrecht filed an ethics complaint against Cummings for his targeting and intimidation of her organization.

Rep. Cummings has described the investigation into IRS targeting of conservative groups as a "witch hunt," and has tried multiple times to put the investigation on hold.

"These documents, indicating involvement of IRS officials at the center of the targeting scandal responding to your requests, raise serious questions about your actions and motivations for trying to bring this investigation to a premature end. If the Committee, as you publicly suggested in June 2013,'wrap[ped] this case up and moved on' at that time, the Committee may have never seen documents raising questions about your possible coordination with the IRS in communications that excluded the Committee Majority," the letter sent by Issa and the Chairmen further states. "As the Committee continues to investigate the IRS's wrongdoing and to gather all relevant testimonial and documentary evidence, the American people deserve to know the full truth. They deserve to know why the Ranking Member and Minority staff of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform surreptitiously contacted the IRS about an individual organization without informing the Majority Staff and even failed to disclose the contact after it became an issue during a subcommittee proceeding...We ask that you explain the full extent of you and your staff's communications with the IRS and why you chose to keep communications with the IRS from Majority Members and staff even after it became a subject of controversy."

The House Oversight Committee will vote tomorrow about whether to hold Lerner in contempt of Congress.

 Ouze wrote:
Isn't the oversight committee responsible for such?

I have to admit, I'm not 100% clear on that discussion. That little snippet of conversation doesn't exactly say what the rest of the article says it does.

Did Elijah Cummings actually fail to disclose that they had been in contact with the IRS when asked such?

Does he have no legitimate purpose in doing so? I know he is on an oversight committee.

Was confidential taxpayer information actually produced (or requested, even)? If so, is this something the oversight committee cannot do?

 Ouze wrote:
Isn't the oversight committee responsible for such?

I have to admit, I'm not 100% clear on that discussion. That little snippet of conversation doesn't exactly say what the rest of the article says it does.

Did Elijah Cummings actually fail to disclose that they had been in contact with the IRS when asked such?

Does he have no legitimate purpose in doing so? I know he is on an oversight committee.

Was confidential taxpayer information actually produced (or requested, even)? If so, is this something the oversight committee cannot do?

 Frazzled wrote:
Can Congress or their staff get tax information about people?
If so, why?

Yesterday, OSC filed a complaint with the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) seeking disciplinary action
against an IRS customer service representative who engaged in activity prohibited by the Hatch Act. OSC’s
investigation found evidence that the IRS employee used his authority and influence as a customer service
representative for a political purpose and engaged in prohibited political activity while in the IRS workplace.
Specifically, OSC’s complaint charges that, when fielding taxpayers’ questions from an IRS customer service help
line, the employee urged taxpayers to reelect President Obama in 2012 by repeatedly reciting a chant based on
the spelling of his last name. Given the seriousness of the allegations and the employee’s Hatch Act knowledge,
OSC is seeking significant disciplinary action.

• A tax advisory specialist in Kentucky will serve a 14-day suspension for promoting her partisan political views to
a taxpayer she was assisting during the 2012 Presidential election season. OSC received a recorded conversation
in which the employee told a taxpayer she was “for” the Democrats because “Republicans already [sic] trying to
cap my pension and . . . they’re going to take women back 40 years.” She continued to explain that her mom
always said, “‘If you vote for a Republican, the rich are going to get richer and the poor are going to get poorer.’
And I went, ‘You’re right.’ I found that out.” The employee’s supervisor had advised her about the Hatch Act’s
restrictions just weeks before the conversation. The employee told the taxpayer, “I’m not supposed to voice my
opinion, so you didn’t hear me saying that.” Following OSC’s investigation, the employee entered into a
settlement agreement with OSC in April 2014. In the agreement, she admitted to violating the Hatch Act’s
restrictions against engaging in political activity while on duty and in the workplace and using her official
authority or influence to affect the result of an election.

• OSC received allegations that employees working in the IRS Taxpayer Assistance Center in Dallas, Texas, violated
the Hatch Act by wearing pro-Obama political stickers, buttons, and clothing to work and displaying pro-Obama
screensavers on their IRS computers. It could not be determined whether these materials were displayed prior
to the November 2012 election or only afterwards. However, since the information OSC received alleged that
these items were commonplace throughout the office, OSC issued cautionary guidance to all IRS employees in
the Dallas Taxpayer Assistance Center that they cannot wear or display any items advocating for or against a
political party, partisan political group, or partisan candidate in the workplace.

House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp lays out damning evidence of Lois Lerner's targeting of conservative groups.

Nearly a year into the IRS scandal, we still don't know exactly what happened—though we are finally getting an inkling. That's thanks to the letter House Ways and Means Chairman Dave Camp sent this week to the Justice Department recommending a criminal probe of Lois Lerner.

The average citizen might be dizzied by the torrent of confusing terms—BOLO lists, Tigta, 501(c)(4)—and the array of accusations that have made up this IRS investigation. Mr. Camp's letter takes a step back to remind us why this matters, even as it provides compelling new information that goes to motive and method—and clarifies some of the curious behavior of Democrats during the investigation.

Motive: Republicans began this investigation looking for a direct link between the White House and IRS targeting. The more probable explanation all along was that Ms. Lerner felt emboldened by Democratic attacks against conservative groups to do what came naturally to her. We know from the record that she disdained money in politics. And we know from her prior tenure at the Federal Election Commission that she had a particular animus against conservative organizations.

As the illuminating timeline accompanying the Camp letter shows, Ms. Lerner's focus on shutting down Crossroads GPS came only after Obama adviser David Axelrod listed Crossroads among "front groups for foreign-controlled companies"; only after Senate Democrats Dick Durbin, Carl Levin, Chuck Schumer and others demanded the IRS investigate Crossroads; only after the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee launched a website to "expose donors" of Crossroads; and only after Obama's campaign lawyer, Bob Bauer, filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission about Crossroads.

The information in Mr. Camp's letter shows that Ms. Lerner sprang to action following a January 2013 meeting with Democracy 21, a campaign-finance outfit petitioning for a crackdown on Crossroads and the liberal big-dollar Priorities USA. (She never touched Priorities, run by former Obama aides.) The Camp outline suggests cause and effect, and that's new.

Method: The general prohibition on releasing taxpayer information has meant that—up until Ways and Means voted Wednesday to release this info—it was impossible to know what precise actions Ms. Lerner had taken against whom. We now know that she took it upon herself to track down the status of Crossroads, to give grief to an IRS unit for not having audited it, to apparently direct another unit to deny it tax-exempt status, and to try to influence the appeals process.

We know, too, that Ms. Lerner did some of this in contravention of IRS policy, for instance involving herself in an audit decision that was supposed to be left to a special review committee. We have the story of a powerful bureaucrat targeting an organization and circumventing IRS safeguards against political or personal bias. That ought to mortify all members of Congress. That Democrats seem not to care gets to another point.

Aftermath: Democrats quickly dropped any feigned outrage over IRS targeting and circled the wagons around the agency. Why? The targeting was outrageous, the public was fuming, and nobody likes the IRS. Joining with Republicans would have only been right and popular.

That is, unless Democrats are worried. As the Camp timeline and details show, the IRS responded to liberal calls to go after conservative groups. Democrats weren't just sending letters. Little noticed in the immediate aftermath of the IRS scandal was a letter sent May 23, 2013, by Carl Levin and (Republican) John McCain to the new acting director of the IRS disguised as an expression of outrage over IRS targeting. Artfully hidden within it was Mr. Levin's acknowledgment that his subcommittee on investigations had for a full year been corresponding and meeting with IRS staff (including Ms. Lerner) to ask "why it was not enforcing the 501(c)(4) statute."

What was said in the course of that year? How much specific information was demanded on conservative groups, and how many demands dispensed on how to handle them? Good questions.

In 2012, both the IRS and Democratic Rep. Elijah Cummings were targeting the group True the Vote. We now have email showing contact between a Cummings staffer and the IRS over that organization. How much more contact was there? It's one thing to write a public letter calling on a regulator to act. It's another to haul the regulator in front of your committee, or have your staff correspond with or pressure said regulator, with regard to ongoing actions. That's a no-no.

The final merit of Mr. Camp's letter is that he's called out Justice and Democrats. Mr. Camp was careful in laying out the ways Ms. Lerner may have broken the law, with powerful details. Democrats can't refute the facts, so instead they are howling about all manner of trivia—the release of names, the "secret" vote to release taxpayer information. But it remains that they are putting themselves on record in support of IRS officials who target groups, circumvent rules, and potentially break the law. That ought to go down well with voters.

“...
These new emails show that the day before she broke the news of the IRS scandal, Lois Lerner was talking to a top Obama Justice Department official about whether the DOJ could prosecute the very same organizations that the IRS had already improperly targeted,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said in a statement. “The IRS emails show Eric Holder’s Department of Justice is now implicated and conflicted in the IRS scandal. No wonder we had to sue in federal court to get these documents...”

 Frazzled wrote:
Interesting that the MSM is ignoring that DOJ thing. Thats a very big deal.

Its on thing to argue they shouldn't get tax gfree status (which i actually agree with for all of them). I ts quuite another to sick the DOJ on them. Thats Nixonian level.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Interesting that the MSM is ignoring that DOJ thing. Thats a very big deal.

Its on thing to argue they shouldn't get tax gfree status (which i actually agree with for all of them). I ts quite another to sick the DOJ on them. Thats Nixonian level.

Don't be preposterous. Nixon eventually took responsibility and resigned

Despite assurances to the contrary, the IRS didn’t destroy all of the donor lists scooped up in its tea party targeting — and a check of those lists reveals that the tax agency audited 10 percent of those donors, much higher than the audit rate for average Americans, House Republicans revealed Wednesday.

Republicans argue that the Internal Revenue Service still hasn’t come clean about the full extent of its targeting, which swept up dozens of conservative groups.

“The committee uncovered new information indicating that after groups provided the information to the IRS, nearly one in 10 donors were subject to audit,” Rep. Charles W. Boustany Jr., Louisiana Republican and chairman of the Ways and Means Committee’s oversight panel, told IRS Commissioner John Koskinen at a hearing Wednesday.

“The abuse of discretion and audit selection must be identified and stopped,” he said.

Mr. Koskinen didn’t specifically address the accusations during the hearing, and the IRS didn’t respond to a request for comment late Wednesday evening.[whembly:!!!!!]

The revelation was made on the same day that the House voted on a nonbinding resolution asking the Justice Department to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the IRS targeting.

Investigators last year reported that the IRS singled out tea party and other conservative groups applying for tax-exempt status and gave them special scrutiny, including asking inappropriate questions about their activities and membership. The request for donor lists was among the inappropriate activities.

The IRS initially denied to Congress that it was singling out tea party groups, despite vocal complaints from groups that had their applications delayed for years. But faced with the internal audit, the agency admitted it had been subjecting these groups to special scrutiny.

Still, Obama administration officials deny that the targeting was politically motivated, blaming confusion and a flood of applications from conservative groups after a 2010 Supreme Court ruling opened the door to broader political activity from outside interest groups.

Republicans said 24 conservative groups were asked for their donor lists. The IRS initially told Congress that those lists were destroyed, but when they went through their files they discovered three lists that weren’t destroyed.

Rep. Dave Camp, Michigan Republican and chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, asked the IRS to review the names on those lists to see whether any had been audited. The IRS reported back that 10 percent were audited — substantially higher than the average rate of 1 percent of average Americans who are audited each year.

Mr. Boustany said he has asked the Government Accountability Office, Congress‘ chief watchdog, to look at how the IRS Exempt Organizations Division decided whom to audit. He said the GAO review is underway and demanded that Mr. Koskinen offer investigators full cooperation.

“IRS has long insisted that Americans should not worry about political targeting at your agency because the IRS has layers of internal protections to guard against it. But in the course of our investigation, however, we found that Lois Lerner acted in defiance of these internal protections,” Mr. Boustany said.

Ms. Lerner ran the division overseeing nonprofit groups. She has since retired from the IRS but has refused to testify to Congress about her role in the targeting, citing her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

The House voted Wednesday to hold her in contempt of Congress for refusing to talk.

 whembly wrote:
Not even a smidgen of corruption?

Not even a tinsy-binsy amount?

 streamdragon wrote:
This whole "scandal" is still about the IRS targeting Tea Party Groups, right? Not individual Tea Partiers?

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Not even a smidgen of corruption?

Not even a tinsy-binsy amount?

Why have you chosen to trust House Republicans? I mean, they didn't unveil the "...new information..." they uncovered.

As to the destruction: we've done this dance before: some of the donor lists were lawfully collected.

 whembly wrote:

Give that the IRS typically audits 1.11% of individuals. This relevation that nearly one in 10 donors were subjected to audit is very Nixonian.

 whembly wrote:

Key word... some. Also they were publically disclosed.

 whembly wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Not even a smidgen of corruption?

Not even a tinsy-binsy amount?

Why have you chosen to trust House Republicans? I mean, they didn't unveil the "...new information..." they uncovered.

I've also chosen to believe Lerner when she herself broke that the IRS made a boo-boo.

Give that the IRS typically audits 1.11% of individuals. This relevation that nearly one in 10 donors were subjected to audit is very Nixonian.

If true... this is a big bleeping deal.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Give that the IRS typically audits 1.11% of individuals. This relevation that nearly one in 10 donors were subjected to audit is very Nixonian.

And is not relevant to anything Lerner may, or may not, have done or said.

 whembly wrote:

Key word... some. Also they were publically disclosed.

Do you know which ones were lawfully collected? Do you care? I suspect neither is true.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Not even a smidgen of corruption?

Not even a tinsy-binsy amount?

Why have you chosen to trust House Republicans? I mean, they didn't unveil the "...new information..." they uncovered.

I've also chosen to believe Lerner when she herself broke that the IRS made a boo-boo.

Give that the IRS typically audits 1.11% of individuals. This relevation that nearly one in 10 donors were subjected to audit is very Nixonian.

If true... this is a big bleeping deal.

And? The fact that the "IRS typically audits 1.11% of individuals" does not really mean squat when we're talking about audits related to political contributions.

 whembly wrote:

Jeebus, you are being dense here dogma.

 whembly wrote:

Well... we don't know for sure... right?

 whembly wrote:

Wow... so you're okay with the fact that there's an increased risk for IRS audits if you donate to certain causes??

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Jeebus, you are being dense here dogma.

How so?

 whembly wrote:

Well... we don't know for sure... right?

So you don't know, and are proceeding on assumptions.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Wow... so you're okay with the fact that there's an increased risk for IRS audits if you donate to certain causes??

If they were donating to groups that were already under investigation, why should there not be a risk for an audit?

 whembly wrote:
Wow... so you're okay with the fact that there's an increased risk for IRS audits if you donate to certain causes??

 streamdragon wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Wow... so you're okay with the fact that there's an increased risk for IRS audits if you donate to certain causes??

Sorry, my reading of the article you posted is that it was the actual groups that were targeted for audit, not individual donors. Did I misread that?

If not, comparing the average individual audit rate to a group audit rate would be meaningless. What's the average rate for, say corporate audit? That would be a more comparable stat.