The chairman of an anti-gay marriage group testified Tuesday that his organization has proof that the IRS leaked confidential donor details last year, calling for prosecution into what he described as a "felony."

"This just smells and I hope this committee gets to the bottom of it," John Eastman, chairman of the National Organization for Marriage, said at a hearing before the House Ways and Means Committee.

Eastman testified Tuesday alongside several Tea Party activists who all claim they were targeted by the IRS. The Tea Party groups offered a first-hand account of how the IRS singled them out when they applied for tax-exempt status, asking them onerous questions and dragging out their application process.

But Eastman shed light on another potential controversy involving the IRS -- the unauthorized disclosure of tax document information.

He recalled how information on their donors was leaked last year and published on the website of the Human Rights Campaign, which Eastman described as their "principal political opponent" on the marriage issue. The documents showed Mitt Romney's political committee as a donor. [whembly: !!!!!!!]

Asked by Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., if he had "proof" that the IRS leaked that material, Eastman said that he did.

Eastman explained that while some information was redacted in the posted version, his group's "forensic" specialists were able to strip layers from the document and found "the original document that was posted there had originated from within the IRS." [whembly: so, hard copies and not electronic records??]

He said the version had "internal IRS stamps," which "only exist within the IRS."

Eastman added: "You can imagine our shock and disgust over this. ... We jealously guard our donors."

He later alleged the information was "deliberately" provided to their opponents.

"If that's inadvertent, the word no longer means anything," he said, claiming his group has been "stonewalled" in its request for an investigation.

After a series of hearings on Capitol Hill where current and former IRS officials testified on the agency's actions, this is the first to feature alleged victims.

Karen Kinney, with the San Fernando Valley Patriots, described how she got a form from the IRS with 35 items divided into 80 "sub-points of inquiry," and was given just 20 days to comply.

The leader of a small South Carolina Tea Party group said her organization first applied for tax-exempt status in 2010 -- and is still waiting for the application to be processed.

Dianne Belsom, president of the Laurens County Tea Party, said her group in rural South Carolina has about 60 members.

For more than 18 months during the 2010 and 2012 election campaigns, IRS agents in a Cincinnati office singled out Tea Party and other conservative groups for additional scrutiny when they sought tax-exempt status, according to a report by J. Russell George, the Treasury Department inspector general for tax administration.

The report said Tea Party groups were asked inappropriate questions about their donors, their political affiliations and their positions on political issues. The additional scrutiny delayed applications for an average of nearly two years, making it difficult for many of the groups to raise money.

GOP appropriators on Monday said they would use the IRS’s purse strings to get answers about how and why it targeted conservative groups.

House Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers (R-Ky.) said his panel may impose conditions on IRS funding, calling the targeting tantamount to a political enemies list that harkens back to “a dark page in our past.”

Other Republicans on the panel wondered how Congress, in the words of Rep. Ander Crenshaw (R-Fla.), “should spend one more dime” on the agency without having more answers on how the tax agency is currently operating.

“We will not rest until this is done,” Rogers told Danny Werfel, the acting IRS chief, at an Appropriations subcommittee hearing on Monday.

“And I don’t need to remind you or anybody else that the power of the purse rests with the Congress, and we’re prepared to use that purse to get to the truth.”

Werfel, in his first testimony on Capitol Hill in his new role, stressed that he was pressing ahead to fix the problems that allowed the agency to single out Tea Party groups seeking tax-exempt status, but also insisted that examination would take time.

The acting IRS chief, still less than two weeks into his new role, said that he was prepared to defend President Obama’s budget, which calls for a roughly $1 billion increase in the agency’s funding.

But given what’s happened with the agency’s oversight of tax-exempt groups, Werfel also said it was the “wrong starting point” to say that part of the IRS needed more money.

“The chairman started this hearing by saying, ‘How can we give another dime?’ And my answer is, let’s explore together what’s going on in this process and figure out what the right funding is,” Werfel said. “But I can’t sit here and say we need more money for that aspect of IRS operations without working with you on the review.”

While the acting IRS chief received tough talk from Republicans about the agency’s funding, he did not receive the same sort of grilling as senior IRS officials who were at the agency while the targeting occurred, like Doug Shulman and Steven Miller.

Werfel made his debut on Capitol Hill as new fronts open in the controversy surrounding the agency, with a new audit from Treasury’s inspector general for tax administration expected to show on Tuesday that the IRS spent millions of dollars on conferences.

That same inspector general outlined, in a report last month, the targeting of conservative groups.

With lawmakers back in Washington, conservative groups are scheduled to testify on Tuesday before the House Ways and Means Committee on their treatment by the IRS.

House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) has loudly made the case in recent days that officials in Washington — and not the embattled office in Cincinnati — directed the targeting. Democrats have called Issa’s claims overblown.

Democrats at Monday’s hearing offered little cover to the IRS but also sought to broaden the scope of the inquiry to reach beyond the years of the Obama administration and to the tax agency’s general oversight of tax-exempt groups.

“It’s hard to shock and awe somebody who’s from Chicago,” said Rep. Mike Quigley (D-Ill.). “I get it. But this is getting there.”
Rep. José Serrano (D-N.Y.) said any probe of the IRS targeting should extend back into the administration of President George W. Bush.

He said the complaints Tea Party groups are raising about improper targeting for scrutiny echo those raised by groups that were opposed to the war in Iraq. And he cautioned Werfel against being so open about his funding levels.

For his part, Werfel maintained that he and most IRS staffers were appalled by the current controversy and that there were still many unanswered questions about how the agency came to single out conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status.

“The public is rightly concerned and upset — as am I —about the inappropriate and unacceptable actions,” he said.

Werfel now is in the midst of a 30-day, top-to-bottom review of the IRS, undertaken at the request of Treasury Secretary Jack Lew, that he said would try to identify what went wrong and to hold agency staffers accountable.

“Like everyone else, I’m frustrated, too,” Werfel said. “I want these facts to emerge quickly.”

Under questioning from Rep. Tom Graves (R-Ga.), Werfel also asserted there has been accountability at the agency and later said the agency was working to sift through some of the tax-exempt applications that should have already been dealt with.

Three IRS officials had either been placed on leave or were exiting the agency, including Miller, the former acting commissioner, and the public servant at the center of the controversy, Lois Lerner.

Russell George, the inspector general for tax administration, told the House Appropriations subcommittee that officials in the Cincinnati office would not say who ordered the targeting.

The inspector general also stressed that there was no evidence the White House played a role in the targeting but that his office is continuing to review whether the IRS’s actions were politically motivated.

A warehouse maintained by contractors for the Environmental Protection Agency contained secret rooms full of exercise equipment, televisions and couches, according to an internal audit.

EPA’s inspector general found contractors used partitions, screens and piled up boxes to hide the rooms from security cameras in the 70,000 square-foot building located in Landover, Md. The warehouse -- used for inventory storage -- is owned by the General Services Administration and leased to the EPA for about $750,000 per year.

The EPA has issued a stop work order to Apex Logistics LLC, the responsible contractor, ensuring the company’s workers no longer have access to the site -- EPA security officials escorted contractor personnel off the premises on May 17 -- and ending all payments on the contract.

Since awarding the contract in May 2007, EPA has paid Apex Logistics about $5.3 million, most of which went to labor costs. Conditions at the facility “raise questions about time charges made by warehouse employees under the contract,” the report said.

“The warehouse contained multiple unauthorized and hidden personal spaces created by and for the workers that included televisions, refrigerators, radios, microwaves, chairs and couches,” the IG report said. “These spaces contained personal items, including photos, pin ups, calendars, clothing, books, magazines and videos.”

The agency has completed an inventory of the warehouse’s contents and segregated all surplus furniture. EPA has committed to conducting an agency-wide review of all warehouse and storage facility operations.

In addition to the secret rooms, the IG found an incomplete and inaccurate recordkeeping system; numerous potential security and safety hazards, including an open box of passports; and “deplorable conditions” -- such as corrosion, vermin feces and “pervasive” mold.

EPA acting Administrator Bob Perciasepe said in a letter to the inspector general the agency has taken “immediate, aggressive actions” in response to the findings.

“The EPA is committed to addressing the previous conditions at the warehouse and implementing institutional protections to ensure those conditions do not recur at this facility or any other used by the agency,” Perciasepe wrote.

 d-usa wrote:
Good idea, lets stop funding to the military until this sexual assault stuff is taken care off, and to states that target homosexual groups...

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
So the IRS spent man hours (at tax payer expense) targeting right leaning groups, and spending huge sums on conferences, and now they're coming cap in hand asking for more money?

 dogma wrote:
Again, is there evidence of this happening which extends beyond political nicety and posturing?

 d-usa wrote:
I don't have any problem with what they did to the Tea Party applicants.

If you are applying for a tax status that prohibits focusing on political issues, while putting a big politically charged name on your application, then you should expect these kind of issues and the IRS should focus on your application to make sure that you are not doing things that are prohibited for the type of organization that you are applying to be.

The only issue is that it doesn't appear that there was the same kind of focus on left leaning groups.

I don't care that they did it to the right, I'm happy that they were actually doing their job there. I'm ticked off that they didn't do their job when it comes to left leaning organizations.

 d-usa wrote:
It's not partisan because they investigated right wing groups, it is because they didn't investigate the left as well.

 d-usa wrote:
It's not partisan because they investigated right wing groups, it is because they didn't investigate the left as well.

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
It's not partisan because they investigated right wing groups, it is because they didn't investigate the left as well.

Right...

My point being is that the IRS shouldn't be in the position in the first place to investigate things like this as it potentially opens up for these types of abuses.

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
It's not partisan because they investigated right wing groups, it is because they didn't investigate the left as well.

Right...

My point being is that the IRS shouldn't be in the position in the first place to investigate things like this as it potentially opens up for these types of abuses.

That's just a pretty dumb statement.

The IRS has certain rules for certain organizations. So you don't think they should have the power or authority to investigate that people are following the rules?

...social welfare organization may engage in some political activities, so long as that is not its primary activity.

Organizing for Action is a nonprofit organization established to support President Obama in achieving enactment of the national agenda Americans voted for on Election Day 2012. OFA will advocate for these policies throughout the country and will mobilize citizens of all parties and diverse points to speak out for speedy passage and effective implementation of this program, including gun violence prevention, sensible environmental policies to address climate change and immigration reform. In addition, OFA will encourage the formation of chapters that will be dedicated at the grassroots level to this program, but also committed to identifying and working progressive change on a range of issues at the state and local level. In carrying its work, OFA will operate as a “social welfare” organization within the meaning of section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code.

 d-usa wrote:
Like I said.

The problem is not that they were picking on Republicans/Tea Party Groups.

The problem is that they are not doing their job enforcing against liberal groups.

"Are you on Facebook or other social networking sites? If yes, provide copies of these pages."

"Provide details regarding all training you have provided or will provide. Indicate who has received or will received the training and submit copies of the training material."

"Please provide copies of all your current web pages, including your blog posts. Please provide copies of all of your newsletters, bulletins, flyers, newsletters or any other media or literature you have disseminated to your members or others. Please provide copies of stories and articles that have been published about you."

"Please provide the following information for your board of directors and officers:

a. Provide all copies of your corporate minutes from inception to the present

b. Provide the titles, duties, work hours and compensation amounts of your board members, officers and employees. If they only work for a certain time yearly, bi-yearly or quad-yearly, please provide the periods they had (have) worked and will work. Please identify your volunteers

c. If you have a board member or officer who has run or will run for a public office in the near future, please describe fully. If none, please confirm by answering "none" to this question."

"Fully describe your youth outreach program with the local school."

"Submit the following information relating to your past and present directors, officers and key employees:

a. Provide a resume for each

b. Indicate the number of hours per month each individual has provided or is providing services to you

c. Provide a description of all the services each individual provides or has provided to you

d. Indicate the total compensation provided to each individual

e. Describe how each compensation package was determined

f. Indicate if any of your current and former officers, directors and key employees are related to each other (include family and business relationships) and describe the nature of the relationship."

 d-usa wrote:
All those really horrible things they are asking for?

That's how you find out what their primary purpose is.

You know, that difficult quesition of "not primarily in politics"? If all your Facebook posts, blog posts, news letters, are political campaigns, then it makes it pretty easy to figure it out.

The only two screwed up things coming forth from this are the leaks, and the fact that they didn't investigate liberals.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 dogma wrote:
Again, is there evidence of this happening which extends beyond political nicety and posturing?

You mean other than ignoring the IRS admitting that they embarked on this behaviour? And their apologies? And the resignations? And the firing? And people refusing to answer Congress? And the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration's comments? And that Obama said that what the IRS did was "inexcusable"

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
It's not partisan because they investigated right wing groups, it is because they didn't investigate the left as well.

Right...

My point being is that the IRS shouldn't be in the position in the first place to investigate things like this as it potentially opens up for these types of abuses.

That's just a pretty dumb statement.

The IRS has certain rules for certain organizations. So you don't think they should have the power or authority to investigate that people are following the rules?

 whembly wrote:

I'm as "pro-gay marriage" as you can be... but the IRS leaked the donor list of The National Organization for Marriage to their political opponents, the pro-gay-marriage Human Rights Campaign. The documents had an internal IRS stamp on them. The list of names was then published on a number of liberal websites and the NOW’s donors were harassed.

 Frazzled wrote:

No. They only have the power to investgiate what is within the code, not make blatant gak up

 Frazzled wrote:
I got an A in my tax law classes. Does that help? When did you?

 Ahtman wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
I got an A in my tax law classes. Does that help? When did you?

So the answer is around 1875?