WaPo: IRS apologizes for inappropriately targeting conservative political groups in 2012 election

[Wrong Direction]

You have absolutely nothing other than your fervent hopes upon which to base that highlighted claim.

Larry, you're either not reading this stuff or you're just ignoring what you read.

HRC went a step further than the Huffington Post in its criticism of Romney and accused him of using “racially divisive tactics” in a press release.

Solmonese, then still the HRC’s president, said in the release he felt Romney’s “funding of a hate-filled campaign designed to drive a wedge between Americans is beyond despicable.”

“Not only has Romney signed NOM’s radical marriage pledge, now we know he’s one of the donors that NOM has been so desperate to keep secret all these years,” Solmonese added.

Solmonese resigned his position at HRC the next day and took up a position as an Obama campaign co-chair. He had announced the then-pending resignation from HRC the previous autumn.

Here's the timeline.

1. Solmonese announces he's leaving HRC.

2. The day before he leaves, he uses Romney's leaked documents in an attack against Romney. Huffington Post does the same, suggesting this was a coordinated - or at least well-distributed, leak.

3. He immediately leaves HRC and becomes an Obama campaign co-chair.

---------- Post added May-15th-2013 at 04:46 PM ----------

I think a case can be made that the primary focus of the NRA is political, maybe not when they first were founded but now...yes.

Slightly off topic, but you'd apparently be very surprised at the member outreach operations the NRA has. They do a ton of gun safety, education and information work. To Larry's point, they also almost certainly go out of their way to advocate for/against specific laws rather than candidates. That's the gray area in the law, but much of their day to day stuff isn't that gray at all.

No, apparently the other three quarters of the groups getting this scrutiny have not been squealing like a stuck pig yet.

Where do you get this information? Are you saying that 3/4 of the applications were processed just as slowly and with as much scrutiny/documentation requests as the IRS did with the ~500 conservative groups? Do you have a link to support that?

Should lobbying be deductible, as a business expense? Or should it be considered as "money that a business spent, out of it's profit"?

Seems, to me, that if everybody who did lobbying, had to pay taxes on their money, and then pay the lobbyist out of what's left, after taxes, then there might be a lot less corporate lobbying.

The problem here is that one man's "corporate lobbying" in the form of PhRMA or NRA or AARP is another small business owner's trip to Washington to meet with their representative about a water issue that's screwing with his business. The goal behind the tax exemption is probably to take away any disincentive for the citizenry to participate in the political process. It just so happens that groups of legitimate individuals have joined together to legally become huge, and hugely powerful, lobbying organizations.

[Larry]

Larry, you're either not reading this stuff or you're just ignoring what you read.

Here's the timeline.

1. Solmonese announces he's leaving HRC.

2. The day before he leaves, he uses Romney's leaked documents in an attack against Romney. Huffington Post does the same, suggesting this was a coordinated - or at least well-distributed, leak.

3. He immediately leaves HRC and becomes an Obama campaign co-chair.

How many people did the leaked data pass through, between the leaker, and the "person who isn;t a part of the Obama campaign, but he's planning on becoming part of it, therefore I'm going to claim he's part of it, cause it sounds more impressive"?

---------- Post added May-15th-2013 at 04:57 PM ----------

The problem here is that one man's "corporate lobbying" in the form of PhRMA or NRA or AARP is another small business owner's trip to Washington to meet with their representative about a water issue that's screwing with his business. The goal behind the tax exemption is probably to take away any disincentive for the citizenry to participate in the political process. It just so happens that groups of legitimate individuals have joined together to legally become huge, and hugely powerful, lobbying organizations.

That's part of my problem whenever we see people hoisting the "ban all special interests" flag.

I like to point out that a big part of why the most powerful organizations in Washington are the NRA and the AARP, is because those organizations represent people. And those organizations don't just hand out money on Capital Hill, they deliver votes. (And, while Congress certainly pays attention to money, they pay attention to votes a whole lot more.)

That at least some "special interests" are simply coalitions of individual voters, who our system is supposed to pay attention to.

[Wrong Direction]

That's part of my problem whenever we see people hoisting the "ban all special interests" flag.

I like to point out that a big part of why the most powerful organizations in Washington are the NRA and the AARP, is because those organizations represent people. And those organizations don't just hand out money on Capital Hill, they deliver votes. (And, while Congress certainly pays attention to money, they pay attention to votes a whole lot more.)

That at least some "special interests" are simply coalitions of individual voters, who our system is supposed to pay attention to.

Right, and I think this is off topic from the thread, but this issue probably does argue for tax simplification in general coupled with actual campaign finance reform (as opposed to the bunk that Washington throws around all too frequently, IMO).

[AsburySkinsFan]

Slightly off topic, but you'd apparently be very surprised at the member outreach operations the NRA has. They do a ton of gun safety, education and information work. To Larry's point, they also almost certainly go out of their way to advocate for/against specific laws rather than candidates. That's the gray area in the law, but much of their day to day stuff isn't that gray at all.

I'm fully aware of the other things the NRA does, trust me I have friends who constantly try to get me to join, which is why I said that a case could be made against the NRA.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Acting Head of the IRS has been dismissed. Investigations are being planned but it won't stop there. Apparently, President wants Justice to do this but I suspect Congress will not allow this. It will be independent.

[AsburySkinsFan]

IRS Director forced to resign.

https://mobile.twitter.com/jimacostacnn/status/334808851704590336/photo/1

[Larry]

Acting Head of the IRS has been dismissed. Investigations are being planned but it won't stop there. Apparently, President wants Justice to do this but I suspect Congress will not allow this. It will be independent.

Uh, just my opinion, but I trust Justice one Dallas of a lot more than Congress.

And I don;t expect firing somebody to make much difference.

1) The folks who think they've found Watergate will continue to assume that Obama ordered the whole thing.

2) And this guy wasn't even the head, when this happened. A W appointee was in charge, then.

[ABQCOWBOY]

The funny thing about this is that the Director is an acting Director. He has only been in the position since 2012. This behavior, apparently goes back to way before his appointment. This isn't over.

---------- Post added May-15th-2013 at 05:33 PM ----------

Uh, just my opinion, but I trust Justice one Dallas of a lot more than Congress.

And I don;t expect firing somebody to make much difference.

1) The folks who think they've found Watergate will continue to assume that Obama ordered the whole thing.

2) And this guy wasn't even the head, when this happened. A W appointee was in charge, then.

Doesn't matter who you, specifically, trust Larry. This is bigger then that. Because the IRS is targeted as the body that will collect and administer Obamacare, this has much larger implications on both sides of the isle. The investigation needs to be headed by an independent body that does not report to the President or any Government Body in order for this to be credible. Eventually, that's where this is going.

[Larry]

Doesn't matter who you, specifically, trust Larry. This is bigger then that. Because the IRS is targeted as the body that will collect and administer Obamacare, this has much larger implications on both sides of the isle. The investigation needs to be headed by an independent body that does not report to the President or any Government Body in order for this to be credible. Eventually, that's where this is going.

1) Yeah, a lot of neutral people on both sides of the aisle, see this and think they can tie it to Obamacare. :halo:

2) And yeah, letting the same people who've been investigating Benghazi for what seems like a year, and still haven't come up with a reason they're investigating, "investigate" this, will really give it more credibility than the FBI.

3) I have absolutely no doubt that's where it's going. This Congress would investigate whether Obama used a handicapped parking permit when he was at Harvard, if they thought it would make the news every night for a year. (And, in this case, they actually have something that at least might be a real scandal.)

But I keep remembering a Mark Russel comment, during the Elian Gonzalez "crisis", when he observed, with a perfectly straight face, that Strom Thurmond had suggested that the Senate stick it's nose into that circus "to take the politics out of it".

[ABQCOWBOY]

Well, I can't say it was different when GWB was in office. It is what it is and what it is is a big mess. This is not over.

[visionary]

Wasn't really sure which thread to post this in, but:

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/chris-matthews-flips-out-on-obama-administration-the-steering-wheel-doesnt-control-the-car/

Chris Matthews Flips Out On Obama Administration: ‘The Steering Wheel Doesn’t Control The Car’

The heady rush of potential scandal formed the steamy head of Wednesday morning’s Morning Joe latté, and even the normally-supportive Chris Matthews got in on the act. As President Obama deals with controversies about the IRS and the Associated Press, which broke on Friday and Monday, respectively, the Joe Scarborough crew blasted the President for his “passivity,” and although Matthews made an effort to lay the blame at the Chief of Staff’s office, he agreed that the administration has lost control, and that voters are thinking “The steering wheel doesn’t control the car any more.”

The myth of a pro-Obama press has gone up in smoke this week, as journalists from every quarter have jumped all over President Obama over a pair of fresh controversies, unanimously operating on a presumption of guilt by the administration on the IRS and Associated Press controversies. Phase two of the political media swarm is to crow that the President isn’t dealing with these scandals because he hasn’t fired anyone three days into them, and just hours after the IRS Inspector General’s report came out.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/irs-resignation-91448.html

Resignation won't plug IRS leadership gap

The resignation of Acting IRS Commissioner Steven Miller might offer a cathartic moment for an angry tax paying public — but it won’t right the ship at the troubled agency.

There are no clear candidates inside the agency who would have the gravitas to overhaul the IRS, rehabilitate it, and bring a sense of moral authority to the job — while effectively dealing with a voracious congressional opposition. But it might also be impossible to get a prominent outside candidate confirmed in a divided Senate.

[Wrong Direction]

How many people did the leaked data pass through, between the leaker, and the "person who isn;t a part of the Obama campaign, but he's planning on becoming part of it, therefore I'm going to claim he's part of it, cause it sounds more impressive"?

Dude, you are REALLY reaching here.

Why does the number of people it passed through matter? It was leaked. Why would it be leaked at all if not for political purposes? And acting like this isn't political when it goes to the Huff Post AND to an organization whose leader speaks out and then joins the Obama campaign the next day? Come on. You're ignoring the obvious in favor of technicalities.

There's no reason at all for anyone to ever get a copy of his leaked tax return.

[Chants]

You're right, they can't discriminate against them for simply exercising their right to speak about lower taxes, however they can discriminate against them because they are primarily a political group and therefore not eligible for 501c tax exempt status. The IRS is not allowed to judge for or against them based on the content of their view, instead the judgment is based on their political activity and purpose of their organization.

As such a Tea Party organization in their application for tax exemption cannot be discriminated against because they affirm Tea Party principles, however they can be discriminated against if their primary purpose is political.

Are you sure you're not working out of the IRS Cincinnati office? I know you probably are not, but based on how you just reflexively flagged Tea party groups as engaged in forbidden political activity, I had to ask.

Here is an example of a 501©4 group that the IRS deems not primarily engaged in forbidden political activity: http://www.barackobama.com/

The problem here is that the IRS has interpreted "political activity" very narrowly for one group of view points, and very broadly for another set of view points. That's rank view point discrimination, it is impermissible under Big Mama Rag vs. United States, it is constitutionally troubling in the extreme, and that is why this whole mess is a major scandal.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Are you sure you're not working out of the IRS Cincinnati office? I know you probably are not, but based on how you just reflexively flagged Tea party groups as engaged in forbidden political activity, I had to ask.

Considering Tea Party is by its nature political I don't think it is a huge leap.

The problem here is that the IRS has interpreted "political activity" very narrowly for one group of view points, and very broadly for another set of view points. That's rank view point discrimination, it is impermissible under Big Mama Rag vs. United States, it is constitutionally troubling in the extreme, and that is why this whole mess is a major scandal.

I agree that equal implementation is key, and the fact that this discrimination was not equally employed is what is disturbing. The only thing that makes this scandalous is if Left oriented applications with similar political tendencies weren't also flagged for audit.

[Chants]

Considering Tea Party is by its nature political I don't think it is a huge leap.

I agree that equal implementation is key, and the fact that this discrimination was not equally employed is what is disturbing. The only thing that makes this scandalous is if Left oriented applications with similar political tendencies weren't also flagged for audit.

Careful, Asbury, but I think you just made a Tea Party public policy argument for simplifying the tax code. I wouldn't want you to get audited, (or labeled a racist).

[AsburySkinsFan]

Careful, Asbury, but I think you just made a Tea Party public policy argument for simplifying the tax code. I wouldn't want you to get audited, (or labeled a racist).

Nah not really, you'll not see me arguing for a flat tax, or a national sales tax not in the slightest. I'm fine with the 501c set up the way it is with the exception that the "primary purpose" issue needs to be cleared up, if there I have a beef with the IRS is this case it's that they seemingly weren't being equal handed, at least at first when they were using "Tea Party" as key words. It does seem though that they corrected as they started focusing on phrases like "to make the country better" or whatever it was.

[Chants]

Nah not really, you'll not see me arguing for a flat tax, or a national sales tax not in the slightest. I'm fine with the 501c set up the way it is with the exception that the "primary purpose" issue needs to be cleared up, if there I have a beef with the IRS is this case it's that they seemingly weren't being equal handed, at least at first when they were using "Tea Party" as key words. It does seem though that they corrected as they started focusing on phrases like "to make the country better" or whatever it was.

Careful. Your desire for "clarification" looks very much like a desire for "simplification", just under a different name. The IRS may deem your desire for clarification as an indication that you harbor secret admiration for tea party principles and the constitution. Then where would you be?

[AsburySkinsFan]

Careful. Your desire for "clarification" looks very much like a desire for "simplification", just under a different name. The IRS may deem your desire for clarification as an indication that you harbor secret admiration for tea party principles and the constitution. Then where would you be?

Well as long as I'm not filing for a 501c I guess I'll be just fine.

[@DCGoldPants]

Let me preface this link with...what the IRS has done is unacceptable. So, both in my mind are "scandals" The main one is just newer.

The real IRS scandal

Allowing so many 'social welfare' groups to enjoy tax-exempt status while participating in politics must stop. The IRS is obligated to scrutinize applicants, 'tea party' or no.

It's strange how "scandal" gets defined these days in Washington. At the moment, everyone is screaming about the "scandal" of the Internal Revenue Service scrutinizing conservative nonprofits before granting them tax-exempt status.

Here are the genuine scandals in this affair: Political organizations are being allowed to masquerade as charities to avoid taxes and keep their donors secret, and the IRS has allowed them to do this for years.

The bottom line first: The IRS hasn't done nearly enough over the years to rein in the subversion of the tax law by political groups claiming a tax exemption that is not legally permitted for campaign activity. Nor has it enforced rules requiring that donors to those groups pay gift tax on their donations.

The organizations at issue are known as 501©4 groups (call them C4s for short) after the section of the tax code that applies to them. They're nonprofit "social welfare" organizations that by law must be devoted primarily to programs broadly serving their communities, not private groups. IRS forms reveal what the agency considers to be mainstream C4s: religious groups; cultural, educational and veterans organizations, homeowners associations, volunteer fire departments. In recent years, however, overtly political groups have been claiming C4 status, which allows them to keep their donor lists secret and to avoid paying taxes on certain income.

Our lunatic campaign finance system is what turned the typical C4 from a volunteer fire department into a conduit of anonymous political cash. Big donors were given the green light to spend freely on elections by the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United decision. That wasn't good enough for some; they wanted to distribute their largess secretly.

C4s were there for the exploitation, and the result has been a wholesale decline of donor disclosure on the national level: As recently as 1998, nearly 100% of all donors to federal campaigns were publicly identified, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a campaign finance watchdog group. By the 2012 presidential election, that was down to 40%.

More from the link

[twa]

IRS uses pre-emptive strike on conservative groups would make a good headline.

[Duckus]

I have worked with 501©4s, 501©3s, and PACs for a long time.

I worked for a 501©4 that got the same questionnaire a few years ago. I know other groups as well. Liberal groups.

Sometimes it takes years to get your status approved.

Also, I think I read that no Tea Party group rejected. Not one. Pretty

[Wrong Direction]

The left's interpretation

they seemingly weren't being equal handed

The right's interpretation of that statement:

The political left, through its heavy-handed government is using its overly expansive powers to persecute its political opposition in an attempt to silence free speech and gain even more power.

[Chants]

Let me preface this link with...what the IRS has done is unacceptable. So, both in my mind are "scandals" The main one is just newer.

More from the link

Ezra Klein had a similar argument in the Post on May 10th, (i.e., the real problem is a lack of enforcement on all 501©'s). Ann Althouse had what I consider to be a very good rebuttal to that argument:

http://althouse.blogspot.com/2013/05/the-problem-wasnt-that-irs-was.html

The unequal, politically skewed enforcement of a law is a far more serious problem than the level of harshness of a neutrally enforced law. We can disagree about what the tax laws should be and how strictly or harshly they should be enforced, but everyone knows it is fundamentally wrong to vary the degree of enforcement, selecting victims by their politics. If government cannot be trusted to avoid that fundamental wrong, it cannot be trusted with any power at all. It would be better to wipe the tax code clean and rebuild it without any complicated corners where government officials — great or small — have a place to do their dirty work.

[AsburySkinsFan]

The left's interpretation

Sure because there is no other choice other than Left or Right. This total bifurcation is what is driving the divisive politics today.

[Wrong Direction]

Sure because there is no other choice other than Left or Right. This total bifurcation is what is driving the divisive politics today.

I'd probably agree if we were talking about policy differences on immigration or gun control. I hate how reasonable people can't come together on just about all political issues and I agree that the left, right, media, internet, social networks and anything you can add certainly unnecessarily drives divisiveness. However, divisiveness isn't the problem with this scandal.