IRS Admits Targeting Conservative Groups During 2012 Election

An anonymous reader writes "A recurring theme in comments on Slashdot since the 9/11 attacks has been concern about the use of government power to monitor or suppress political activity unassociated with terrorism but rather based on ideology. It has just been revealed that the IRS has in fact done that. From the story: "The Internal Revenue Service inappropriately flagged conservative political groups for additional reviews during the 2012 election . . . Organizations were singled out because they included the words 'tea party' or 'patriot' in their applications for tax-exempt status, said Lois Lerner, who heads the IRS division that oversees tax-exempt groups. In some cases, groups were asked for their list of donors, which violates IRS policy in most cases, she said. 'That was wrong. That was absolutely incorrect, it was insensitive and it was inappropriate. That's not how we go about selecting cases for further review,' Lerner said . . . 'The IRS would like to apologize for that,' she added. . . . Lerner said the practice was initiated by low-level workers in Cincinnati and was not motivated by political bias. . . . she told The AP that no high level IRS officials knew about the practice. Tea Party groups were livid on Friday. ... In all, about 300 groups were singled out for additional review. . . Tea Party groups weren't buying the idea that the decision to target them was solely the responsibility of low-level IRS workers. ... During the conference call it was stated that no disciplinary action had been taken by those who engaged in this activity. President Obama has previously joked about using the IRS to target people." So it's not how they choose cases for review (except when it is), and was not motivated by political bias (except that it was). Also at National Review, with more bite.

Comments

seems reasonable to me

[cas2000]

that a bunch of people who spend a lot of time whinging about taxes and telling each other stories about being tax protestors and evading or even avoiding tax, may actually be good targets for tax audits.

i.e. if you're doing your job of loooking for people avoiding tax, then starting with people who are ideologically inclined to avoid tax would be sensible and, likely, productive.

Re: Very un-PC

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes but they arent trying to throw the country under the bus just because the president is black.

Re: Very un-PC

[sammie78]

Yes but they arent trying to throw the country under the bus just because the president is black.

What the h-e double hockey are you talking about?

[rsilvergun]

Right wing groups marginalized? Did you not notice the 24/7 TV channel that exists solely to promote right wing views? Did you not notice their complete dominance of local politics (fueled by Citizens United Money) that allowed them to Gerrymander themselves control of the country?

Right wingers represent the ruling class. The 1%. The ones with money. Anything else they say or do is lip service to the ignorant. The Tea Party was created out of whole cloth by a super pack run by Dick Army. Fox news ran stories about UPCOMMING spontaneous protests. How the heck do you advertise for a spontaneous protest? Ask Fox News, I don't know.

This sucks. The Dems tried playing a little hardball, but they can't win. That's because when it counts. When it really counts. When it's not about some dumb ass social issue like two dudes marrying. When it's about _money_. When that happens, the media knows for real what side their bread's buttered on. You won't hear about any of the 1000 things the Bush administration did. You won't hear about the voter suppression in democratic districts. About what _really_ the unconstitutional laws used to shut down Acorn, or about how the police and FBI worked together to shut down OWS and the anti-1% movement. None of that. But mark my words, the dems get a little out of line and you'll hear. You'll get outraged, and you'll go right back to giving everything you have and hold dear to the Republicans and their 1% masters. Just like a good little slave. Obey.

Re:If your group is

[Zenin]

The Tea Party advocates for legislative reform of the tax code and containing spending, not revolts against the government.

Clearly you're following a different Tea Party then I do.

I'm tuned into most of the major Tea Party social networks and the message to overthrow the US Government via armed rebellion is very thinly veiled if it's veiled at all. The supporters sure get the message loud and clear, posting endless comments about it.

They really do believe in an armed overthrow of the US Government. By "take their country back" they really do mean with lethal force. They aren't joking around, they're deadly serious. They really do want to start a 2nd US Civil War.

Re: Very un-PC

[Alsee]

It is rather sad when many leftists simply write off opponents to the President as racists of some sort

Not all opponents of the president are racist.
On the other hand, all of the racists are opponents of the president.

Next, lets look at the percentages a bit. It's not easy to pin down exact percentages for racists, but how about I toss out a couple of rather significant numbers. In 1998 South Carolina, In 2000 Alabama, 38% voted in favor of interracial marriage being illegal in the state constitution. 40.5% of voters voted in favor of interracial marriage being illegal in the state constitution. In 2011 a poll of Mississippi Republicans directly asked whether interracial marriage should be illegal. 46% said it should be illegal. I'd like to point out that another 14% went with the don't-know/not-sure option. Only 40%...... that's FOURTY-FUCKING-PERCENT of Mississippi Republicans reached the bare threshold of not being FLAMING-SHITHOLE-BIGOTs far enough to merely say interracial marriage should not be ILLEGAL. Nevermind the additional percentage of (cough cough) "mild-racists" who accept interracial marriage as legal, but who still violently forbid their children from dating anyone brown.

You want to say not-all Obama opponents are racists? Sure. That's true. HOWEVER, the percentage of the population who are loudly anti-Obama is damn-near the same percentage of the population who are flaming shithole racists. The Obamam haters aren't being smeared as racists because of one or two bad-apple racists, and it's not one or two bad-apple racists who are unwanted by some fictional decent mainstream majority Obama critics. No, the percentage of people riled up against Obama is almost the same as the percentage of Racists in the population, and all the racists are in the group riled up against Obama, with mathematically means the substantial majority of Obama haters are nothing but pissed off racists. And any Obama-haters who aren't racists are still immersed in a community discussion primarily driven by angry racists. An atmosphere saturated by venomous irrational conspiracy-theorist distortion-and-outright-fiction rhetoric of racists. A non-racists may certainly be angry at Obama for some legitimate reasons, however it's a virtual certainty that the anger of a non-racists Obama-hater has, at least in part, been created or amplified by crap that JUST AIN'T TRUE circulating around the (MAJORITY racists) anti-Obama community.

And yet to the left... it is the color of ones skin, what sort of genitals one has, or what kind of genitals they prefer on the person they are with that is more important than the content of their character.

Content of character? Look at those percentages who want interracial marriage to be illegal, and you go right ahead and talk about content of character. Yes, especially go right ahead and talk about how character is more important than skin color.

-