IRS 'targeted' groups with 'Occupy' and 'Progressive' in names

reply to post by XPLodER

Dear XPLodER,

what if all the claims of targeting, are to distract from under reporting of political spending.........?

That's an interesting point and I'm glad you raised it, even if I don't fully understand it.

I didn't think there was much national attention being paid to under-reporting of political spending. In other words, I didn't think we had to be distracted from the under-reporting because nobody was paying attention to it in the first place.

I would think we could handle both problems at the same time. Do you think either party is particularly anxious to keep under-reporting or one-sided IRS targeting as a practice? I hope not. If so, that party should be dumped.

But I'm probably missing the point you were intending to make. If I missed it, please try again, it sounds intriguing.

With respect,
Charles1952

what if all the claims of targeting, are to distract from under reporting of political spending.........?

That's an interesting point and I'm glad you raised it, even if I don't fully understand it.

you would have to be very careful that your spending was actually for verifiable social welfare purposes, and that you could account for 51% or more of total collections, and that they were "directly" spent on that aim.
keeping within these guidelines is very difficult.

I didn't think there was much national attention being paid to under-reporting of political spending. In other words, I didn't think we had to be distracted from the under-reporting because nobody was paying attention to it in the first place.

think about it like this,
for every attack add say $10,000 dollars, the same group would have to show over $10,000 worth of "direct" benefit to the social welfare of the community.
its easy to spend the money, but hard to prove where the "direct benefit" is to the community is

I would think we could handle both problems at the same time. Do you think either party is particularly anxious to keep under-reporting or one-sided IRS targeting as a practice? I hope not. If so, that party should be dumped.

problem is the "targeting" issue has over shadowed and impeded the debate on just who can "account" for the "charity" they are required to undertake to be exempted in the first place.

But I'm probably missing the point you were intending to make. If I missed it, please try again, it sounds intriguing.

as a conduit for political donations, a social welfare charity status, enables a group to shield their political donors from exposure as the process is anonymous.
so instead of paying tax on a political donation,
their political donation is tax free and that can be used to offset taxes owed.

by spending any collected tax free money on right leaning or left leaning media out lets the money would be considered in the benefit of either left or right political groups, and not in the general "social welfare" the exact same amount would then have to be spent on the community in a non partisan way.

in effect you have transferred tax free monies from one group through a charity to another group who profits from the advertising.


With respect,
xploder

reply to post by XPLodER

Dear XPLodER,

I think I agree with you, I've always hated tax law. We're up to 75,000+ pages of Code, and nobody understands it all.

For 501(c)3s, there are different limits for endorsing a candidate or particular piece of legislation (none), political lobbying (5% if you use the "Insubstantial part" test, 20% if you choose the 501 (h) election), and more ifs, ands, or buts, than I can even imagine.

Here's a short list of ten 501 (c) 3 myths:
www.asaecenter.org...

If you're interested in throwing out at least half of the Code and coming up with understandable, uniform rules, I'm with you. But I don't see how the current system is practical. It's even worse, when they throw corruption into the mix.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952


Charles, I think that these "shortcuts" were seen as being helpful to get a job done rather than political targeting. If they were not viewed as an "enemies list", which they weren't, then there would be nothing to blow the whistle on.

When high govt bureaucrats are brought before politicians, it's like bringing sheepdogs in front of pitbulls. One jaw hold on a neck, a quick snap, and that sheepdog is a gonner. An entire 30plus years of public service flashes before one's eyes. So it doesn't surprise me that there are profuse apologies and breastbeatings.

In America, politicians have always needed votes to get elected. With the decades long emphasis on image and selling in a campaign, and a campaign industry built up to help sell candidates, money is needed to buy those votes. What we have here is a system that needs legalized bribery to exist.

The only money a politician will launch a scandal over is money found in a freezer. Otherwise, few politicians will even talk about, let alone investigate, our system of legalized bribery. They cannot bite the hand that feeds them. These pitbulls will bark loudly over a lot of things, but obsequently lick the hand that puts money in their coffers. Mr. Issa will shine light on a BOLO list but keep in the dark the dark money that greases the politician's palm and the wheel of the campaign industry.

reply to post by charles1952


dear charles,

i found some more comments on the irs probe,

“We replaced the leadership of the I.R.S. over this. We have subpoenas out. We are deposing employees. And we have damaged the president,” said Representative Gerald E. Connolly, Democrat of Virginia and a member of the House committee that initiated the I.R.S. inquiry. “It turns out this has been a gross distortion of reality.”

www.nytimes.com...

Yet some Republicans have tempered their statements on the controversy.

“We haven’t proved political motivation,” said Representative Charles Boustany Jr., a Louisiana Republican who, as the chairman of the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Oversight, is leading one inquiry.

Senator Roy Blunt, Republican of Missouri, said that in retrospect, suggestions that Mr. Obama had orchestrated an I.R.S. attack on his political enemies were unwarranted.

“Presidents have always been very careful about maintaining the appearance of keeping hands off the I.R.S.,” he said. “I don’t have any reason to believe there wasn’t targeting of conservatives, but it might well have been a lot more than that as well.”

it is starting to look like the whole thing has been one big distraction,

xploder

reply to post by XPLodER

Dear XPLodER,

Nice work finding those comments. I agree with you that the case the New York Times article mentioned is not that of a conservative group, and I think the IRS has its policies all fouled up.

I also found something a little different, and that is the letter from the IRS IG clarifying his remarks. The letter was written in response to Representative Sander Levin (Democrat), who wondered about the treatment given to groups with "Progress" or "Progressive" in their names.

From early in the IG's response letter:

Based on the information you flagged regarding the existence of a "Progressives" entry on BOLO lists, TIGTA performed additional research which determined that six tax-exempt applications filed between May 2010 and May 2012 having the words"progress" or "progressive" in their names were included in the 298 cases the IRS identified as potential political cases.

We also determined that 14 tax-exempt applications filed between May 2010 and May 2012 using the words "progress" or"progressive" in their names were not referred for added scrutiny as potential political cases. In total, 30 percent of the organizations we identified with the words "progress"or "progressive" in their names were processed as potential political cases.

In comparison, our audit found that 100 percent of the tax-exempt applications with Tea Party, Patriots, or 9/12 in their names were processed as potential political cases during the time frame of our audit.

www.scribd.com...

You're right that some progressive groups were scrutinized, but to me it still seems as though it was unbalanced against the conservatives. Of course, even if it was balanced, it would still be wrong, but I have to tell you that I haven't seen the evidence yet indicating it was just a simple administrative slip.

Of course I could be wrong, and I hope I am. If the Administration is using the IRS to go after an "Enemies' List," we're getting in deeper and deeper trouble.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952

You're right that some progressive groups were scrutinized, but to me it still seems as though it was unbalanced against the conservatives. Of course, even if it was balanced, it would still be wrong, but I have to tell you that I haven't seen the evidence yet indicating it was just a simple administrative slip.

the unbalanced nature of the numbers was POST bolo lists,
if there were simply hundreds more tea party groups applying, and remember the tea party is ACTIVELY political,
and "candidates" were NAMED tea party candidates. there is a suggestion that groups colluded to apply to get tax free money using the "tea party network" of different groups around the US.

IMHO someone suggested to the tea party groups to apply for exemption,
and "trained" them on HOW to apply and if true then the same "red flags" would be present in most of the applications from this group.

Of course I could be wrong, and I hope I am. If the Administration is using the IRS to go after an "Enemies' List," we're getting in deeper and deeper trouble.

i was hoping you could see that overtly political groups with the name "tea party" should NOT have been investigated due to their NAME only.

instead they should have been investigated on the MERITS of their application,
AND if a certain type of group tried to coach smaller groups on their INDIVIDUAL applications,
the whole group can be considered "connected" and if that small group doing the coaching was POLITICAL,
then this is not targeting.

most of the conservative groups were individual small groups applying,
without a "collective" approach to applying.

i am sure this would "look like targeting"
but have you considered that the tea party groups ALL applied with the same inconsistency?

xploder

reply to post by XPLodER

Dear XPLodER,

I don't know where we'd be without you. You do very nice work.

You're quite right, I don't know if all of the Tea Party, Patriot groups, 9/12 organizations, and all the rest used the same template. Do yoou have any idea how we could find out? We can't look at their applications. Maybe they did.

But, hold on a second. If they all used the same format, wouldn't that have been pretty obvious after the first few applications? Then they could all be treated with the same form letter and sent back almost the same day they were received. But that's not what happened.

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

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

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

www.usatoday.com...

And one more source weighs in on the "surge in applications" argument.

Griffin said there was no surge in 501(c)(4) applications in 2010, and the numbers from the IRS back him up. The timeline in the Inspector General’s audit shows that the selective treatment of groups based on their ties to the tea party movement began before any rise in the IRS workload.

We rate the statement True.

www.politifact.com...

How about if we agree that it looks like there was political discrimination, but that we shouldn't claim Obama put an enemies list into play until we have more info?

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952

How about if we agree that it looks like there was political discrimination, but that we shouldn't claim Obama put an enemies list into play until we have more info?

look i am not an expert in tax i am a layman,
i will look at your links

my side of the debate so far relies on a "hypothetical" rather than fact based argument,
and that was in response to a "one or the other type argument" made by another member.

from your source, 501 c 4

many social wealfare non profits became more active in politics after recent court rulings including supream courts citizens united decision said corperations and unions have first amendment right to spend unlimited amounts calling for the election or defeat of candidates

www.usatoday.com...

i thought others had predicted increasing use of the change in law and anticipated increases in applications.....
i dont disagree with what you have said,
but as i am just a blogger i cant give you any direct answers,
only my "therory" in a debate,


xploder