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

If your group is

[Anonymous Coward]

If your groups is named after the most famous tax revoult in the history of the country I would expect the tax man to pay special interest to it.

Re:If your group is

[cold fjord]

If your groups is named after the most famous tax revoult in the history of the country I would expect the tax man to pay special interest to it.

That tax revolt was against the previous regime (the British Empire), not the current government (United States of America). The Tea Party advocates for legislative reform of the tax code and containing spending, not revolts against the government. This is clearly a case of abuse of authority by a government agency intervening in the political process for the benefit of the current administration. You've got a pretty big evidentiary burden if you want to try to justify that.

Re:If your group is

[RabidReindeer]

If your groups is named after the most famous tax revoult in the history of the country I would expect the tax man to pay special interest to it.

That tax revolt was against the previous regime (the British Empire), not the current government (United States of America). The Tea Party advocates for legislative reform of the tax code and containing spending, not revolts against the government. This is clearly a case of abuse of authority by a government agency intervening in the political process for the benefit of the current administration. You've got a pretty big evidentiary burden if you want to try to justify that.

At the time, the "previous regime" was still the current regime, and the Boston Tea Party was a message from the taxpayers of that regime to their overseas overlords that if they wanted to levy taxes, they'd darned well better allow the locals some say-so in the process. The general revolt only came after the Crown refused to take the hints.

The majority of the modern-day self-identifying Tea Partiers don't show much understanding of that motivation. At best, they complain about "wasteful" taxation, at worst, what they really want is no taxation at all (just keep yore dam commie socialist gummint hands offa mine Social Securrity!)

Holding that sort of attitude doesn't exactly make the tax people think warmly about you, needless to say.

Nonetheless, targeting people based on their political positions is wrong, regardless of their philosophy.

Re:If your group is

[Anonymous Coward]

That's true. However, organizations with those kinds of names are likely to be engaged in political activity which should render them ineligible for tax exempt status.

The fact that the IRS has permitted the LDS and Catholics to get away with using tax exempt resources to campaign does not mean that the IRS should be required to let everybody do it. It means that the IRS needs to do a better job of enforcing the code.

There do appear to be some abuses of power here, but keeping an eye on organizations likely to be engaged in political activity isn't wrong.

do you mean just like teachers unions?
mike

Re:If your group is

[PopeRatzo]

do you mean just like teachers unions?
mike

Mike, you can engage in political activity and still be a 501c3 or 4, but it can't be your primary activity.

An organization whose primary activity is political cannot be a non-profit according to those statutes. I'm sure even you would admit that the various teachers' unions are not primarily political organizations. Not as long as they are negotiating contracts, representing members, etc. There are a LOT of teachers in the US and the teachers' unions are very busy even in non-election years. You might be surprised to learn that there are lots of parts of the country where the locals do absolutely no political work at all.

Try this exercise: look up a few organizations that have the name "tea party" and/or "patriot" in their name and see how many of them meet the same criteria.

Re:If your group is

[cold fjord]

However, organizations with those kinds of names are likely to be engaged in political activity which should render them ineligible for tax exempt status.

I see. So you want government officials to make judgments based on the name of the organization instead of what is on the application? Instead of what they actually do? Interesting. Probably not a good idea though.

The fact that the IRS has permitted the LDS and Catholics to get away with using tax exempt resources to campaign does not mean that the IRS should be required to let everybody do it.

Under the law you can advocate for policy. If you don't like that, you try to change the law, not use the government to disadvantage your political opposition.

There do appear to be some abuses of power here,

That seems remarkably restrained. I think your eyesight is likely diminished by the targets of this being political groups you oppose . . . what what's a little overstep by the government if the outcome is agreeable, eh?.

But allow me to correct you - the IRS has admitted that it was wrong, over the line. They aren't hedging, why are you?

You find nothing truly troubling in the following?

The IRS’s Tea-Party Targeting

. . . perhaps most troubling, those tea-party organizations were sent letters of inquiry demanding information that would seldom if ever be demanded of any other applicant in the process. The IRS demanded lists of donors, names of spouses and family members, detailed information about political views and associations — all of that “under penalties of perjury.” Many applicants dropped out of the process. The questions were remarkably invasive: For example, the IRS demanded to know not only whether political candidates participated in public forums conducted by the groups, but which issues were discussed, along with copies of any literature distributed at the forum and material published on websites. (The IRS has been less forthcoming with its own materials related to this investigation.) If the organizations collected dues, the IRS demanded to know how much they were. It demanded everything down to the résumés of employees. The inquiry was not limited to members of the organization, its executives, or its directors, but included even their family members: The IRS demanded to know — again, under penalty of perjury — whether any of their family members might be thinking about running for office. Its demand for the names of all donors — and all recipients of grants — is in violation of IRS policy. . . more

--------

but keeping an eye on organizations likely to be engaged in political activity isn't wrong.

That wasn't the job of the people at IRS involved in this, so yes, it was worng. Or do you want random government officials "volunteering" to keep the voters in line? You know, just until after the election is over? Or, hey, if it works, why stop? (You won't complain if the shoe is on the other foot, will you?)

If you still just can't quite bring yourself to identify this as a big problem, I'm tempted to suggest some supplementary reading material.

Re:If your group is

[Obfuscant]

Mike, you can engage in political activity and still be a 501c3 or 4, but it can't be your primary activity.

If only those two were the only ways of being tax exempt. A political organization can be tax exempt if its primary activity is a tax exempt activity. Here:

The exempt function of a political organization is influencing or attempting to influence the selection, nomination, election or appointment of an individual to a federal, state, or local public office or office in a political organization. The election of Presidential or Vice-Presidential electors is also part of the exempt function of a political organization. Activities that directly or indirectly relate to or support an exempt function are exempt function activities.

I'd say the Tea Party meets that requirement.

Re: If your group is

[Mashiki]

And the tea party has people who wanted to take over a courthouse in Tennessee(or was it Georgia?) shoot immigrants in Arizona, and other fun activity.

You mean the usual protests held at a courthouse? Oh right, never mind that it was allowed by the local officers of the court or anything. And shooting "illegal" immigrants trespassing on private property, when the property owners are getting shot at, because the federal government isn't enforcing the law as it is. Not only that but they're actively refusing to arrest or detain people entering illegally into Texas, Arizona and California.

Blind ignorance is always fun isn't it? Let me know how that works out for you.

Re:If your group is

[OhPlz]

You're condemning all the people at the rallies by referring to some forum posts as evidence?

If people made that kind of sweeping generalization using comments here, imagine what they'd be saying about the computing industry.

Re:If your group is

[SuperKendall]

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.

I've been to a number of rallies and there are no such examples. You are merely making this up. All the Tea Party wants, all is has ever wanted is simply fiscal restraint and less government intrusion in our lives. I'm pretty sure you have confused just how exactly there comes to be less government. The last thing the Tea Party people want is some kind of overthrow which just leave different bastards in equal control of you.

You also seem to be utterly confused at the difference between "wed like to keep our guns to protect ourselves from criminals" vs. "We want to keep guns in a futile and utterly stupid attempt to attack the government". The Tea Party fights not with arms but through existing political process - which has been true from the start - and why they have seen such support and success. The best way to attack a rampant process is to inject yourself within and turn it on itself.

Re:If your group is

[__aaltlg1547]

If your groups is named after the most famous tax revoult in the history of the country I would expect the tax man to pay special interest to it.

Not to mention that

political parties cannot be tax exempt organizations

. So using "party" in your group's name or any of its application documents in any sense that suggests politics ought to evoke particular scrutiny.

Re:If your group is

[__aaltlg1547]

The tea party also supports candidates which is a taxable activity. If you do that, your group is not tax exempt.

Re:If your group is

[cold fjord]

I see. So you want government large enough to know what every organization (and presumably every private citizen) in the country is spending their money on? Interesting. Probably not a good idea though.

That's right. It isn't a good idea. And that isn't what I suggested. I'm not sure how you came up with that silly nonsense. On the other hand, it effectively describes what the IRS was subjecting those organizations to. And it somewhat foreshadows the coming implementation of Obamacare, of which the IRS is the key enforcer.

Targeting organizations that are explicitly linked with anti-tax groups such as the Tea Party is common sense. It's like questioning a guy with an empty gas can that was walking away from a burning building.

There is a little problem with your understanding. Burning down a building - arson - is illegal. Advocating that congress change the tax laws and control spending, which is what the Tea Party does, is completely legal. Your "common sense" idea of targeting the Tea Party for the abuses perpetrated by IRS employees is ridiculous. Even the IRS says it was over the line, wrong. What you call "common sense" is in fact stupid and abusive.

Here is a question for you - is it OK to do the same thing to the causes you support? You do realize that the government will change hands eventually, right?

Re:If your group is

[kenh]

There do appear to be some abuses of power here, but keeping an eye on organizations likely to be engaged in political activity isn't wrong.

The IRS requesting donor lists was illegal, yet they did it and the mainstream media ignored the complaints because...because...why?

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..

Really? This is something that a low-level employee can do on their own, without any of their superiors being aware of it? Then again, it was low-level employees that decided to initiate a gun-running operation into Mexico and low-level employees that denied the Consulate in Benghazi additional security in the face ot increased threats, so why not? The press has accepted this pitiful excuse before, why not this time?

Re:If your group is

[Mashiki]

You mean that totally made-up thing where an FBI plant

If you mean they were actually planning it, and one of them turned informant well then yes. Perhaps you should be getting your information from someplace else instead of infowars.

How APK avoids paying taxes

[Anonymous Coward]

irs.gov 127.0.0.0

Accountability

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is there no accountability for government workers?

Someone broke the law, even criminally so I might add. People should get fired over this, and criminal charges filed. At the very least this is a serious breach of privacy and trust.

Re:Accountability

[darkmeridian]

You didn't read the article. By definition, the IRS couldn't have gone after their political rivals because political groups are not allowed to have non-profit status. That's the entire cause of this kerfuffle. The law forbids non-profits from having a political goal. The IRS saw "Tea Party" and "Patriot" in the names and just assumed those groups were political in nature. That's stupid and lazy, but not necessarily evil or criminal. BUT if you think that "Tea Party" and "Patriot" groups are inherently political, and therefore discriminated against by the IRS on that basis, then you're actually agreeing that the IRS did the right thing by targeting them as political groups!

Re:Accountability

[Attila Dimedici]

You might want to look into 527 organizations. They are explicitly political, non-profit organizations. The claim is made that the organizations targeted were 501(c)4 organizations, which the article says may participate in political activities as long as it is not their primary activity. One such organization is Moveon.org (you know the organization that was formed to attack those who called for Bill Clinton's impeachment for lying under oath). I hardly see how "Tea Party" and "Patriot" in the name necessarily makes an organization more political than Moveon.org. In addition, the things which the IRS asked for were above and beyond that which would have told them whether the organization was primarily involved in political activity or if other social welfare activities took up more of its time and resources.

Well, of course not.

[techno-vampire]

...it was stated that no disciplinary action had been taken by those who engaged in this activity.

What else would you expect? Did you really think that the people who did this were going to discipline themselves? What I would have expected was that disciplinary action had been taken against the people responsible. And, I'll add, I'm sure that whoever did this would have ended up in hot water if they'd targeted groups that supported President Obama.

And to echo the tea partiers

[Anonymous Coward]

Surely they had no issue with the enhanced audits if they had nothing to hide.

Re:And to echo the tea partiers

[atriusofbricia]

Surely they had no issue with the enhanced audits if they had nothing to hide.

Not sure if funny or insightful.

Neither given the implication that Tea Party members would somehow be in favor of intrusive government action in other areas, which they are not in general.

Doubly so if the allusion was towards TSA 'enhanced' stuff, support of which would seem to be nigh incompatible with Tea Party philosophy.

It's hard to believe

[centipedes.in.my.vag]

It's hard to believe.

Not that the IRS would do this, that's a gimmie. Or that they'd lie to cover it up, throw some small-time employees under the bus and try to wash their hands of it, we expect that. What's hard to believe is that there will be any real changes past the initial scandal.

The righty groups are already so marginalized in public opinion that most people will look at this article and rather than actually have any issue with the actions of the IRS, they'll feel horrified that the Tea Party was right on something that was already discarded as conspiracy theory. Like a crazy uncle that will never shut up about the time he called it.

Case in point: If this happened to anyone else the outrage would be unquantifiable. But because the systemic harassment of political affiliations only targeted conservatives we will see a whole lot of rationalizing, and IRS apologists. That's the real story.

Re:It's hard to believe

[Lord Kano]

You're half right.

It's not because Tea Party groups are fringe elements. It's because the average American is only outraged when they are told to be by the mainstream media. The same media that gives Obama the glory-hole treatment every week isn't going to direct people to be upset about the unfair treatment of the opposition.

LK

Re:It's hard to believe

[hondo77]

Most tea party members tend to lean libertarian, who are generally more socially liberal than Democrats on planet Zontar.

FTFY.

Re:Very un-PC

[DaHat]

Organizations filing for tax-exempt status that are engaged in political work SHOULD receive the kind of scrutiny they got.

Sounds good in theory... and yet groups like Organizing for America and MoveOn.org remain unmolested... funny that?

Insensitive?

[Intropy]

It was insensitive? Does the IRS think that the issue is that they insulted a particular group by singling them out? That's what it would have been if you'd just called them mean names. Actually using your authority as part of the government to target them is bit worse than "insensitive."

Re:Very un-PC

[cold fjord]

What is so evil that this needs to be on every news feed in the world?

So you see no problem with an executive branch agency targeting the political opposition to the incumbent administration in a direct, focused way, apparently calculated to hinder their participation in the election process? You are unbothered by government officials illegitimately, and perhaps illegally, demanding membership lists? You have no sense that this sort of thing might undermine free and fair elections? You have no worries about government officials maintaining enemies lists? It strikes me that you have no useful comment to give on this matter.

Re:Not trutly bias, not punitive. More like profil

[centipedes.in.my.vag]

The idea that protesting a law makes you an automatic violator of said law doesn't stand. (e.g. Protesting weed laws doesn't make you a drug dealer.)

Re:Very un-PC

[Bartles]

I would expect this rationalization from someone who perhaps asks, "what is so evil about fascism that it needs to be on every news feed in the world?". Of course, modern day fascists don't see themselves as fascist, much like insane people see themselves as perfectly rational.

Re: Very un-PC

[Lord Kano]

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

No, they were willing to throw the country under the bus just to get a black president.

LK

Re:Very un-PC

[Bartles]

Not to mention that Media Matters still has it's tax-exempt status unquestioned.

on a serious note

[AdmV0rl0n]

I have a question...

Maybe more than one..

Under Bush, lotta crying, moaning, and bleeting from the people. Seems now the same people who did this are or have been involved in;

Cold blodded murder of enemy combatants (Bin Laden could have been taken. He was simply assasinated..) - remember the pictures of a soldier doing this under Bush? all hell let loose. Wot, now its ok cos the pres says so?

Illegal bombardment of other nations land, and illegal operations and flights over other nations airspaces. Drone use today is at an all time high..
Gitmo still seems to be open..
Still in Afganistan, and ever more so in Afpak.

Seems to me that the President and friends is getting a very big free pass on a lot of activities.
And some stuff is new, like drones over the US and further assassinations of unwanted or disliked individuals.

Whatever the background, the IRS should be politically independant and not a tool to be aimed at opponents.
I'm not American. But I have to say that in recent years it seems a lot of mud gets thrown. The republicans and tea party folks are accused of living in their own bubble. And I think thats true. But have to say, the other side is in its own bubble, and its not getting better. In fact, its getting really quite bad.

The President is murdering civilians. And he's issuing orders to kill people. And he seems to have no check or balance. Seems dem press are giving free rides. Doing so isn't proving loyaltly to their beliefs or so called values.

When 3000 Pakistani's die from drone strikes, will it turn to a Pearl Harbour for Pakistan?
More than anything else, put aside the politics, these policies and ideas are not more effective than Bush, or better than Bush. The current work isn't effective in even the medium term. Short term, maybe the US gets some people. But whole villages are being turned. Its winning hearts and minds, but not for the US. This is not going well. It may seem like it is on the surface, but thats all.

Re: Very un-PC

[DaHat]

Well said!

It is rather sad when many leftists simply write off opponents to the President as racists of some sort... as it does indicate what kind of issues they themselves have with race if that is the first thing that comes to mind.

MLK said:

I have a dream that my four little children will one day be judged not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character

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.

It's NOT suppressing Free Speech

[trims]

First off, I do think it was politically motivated, at least in the extent that someone decided to do something that would be looked favorably on the higher-ups. That's not OK, and people should get fired for it.

However, do note that what they are discussing here is auditing 503(c).4 organizations, to make sure they were complying with the regulations.

That is, these organizations are supposed to be engaging in NON-POLITICAL activities, for which we give them the benefit of being non-profit (and, making donations to them tax deductible).

There's been an explosion of 503(c).4 organizations over the past 4 years (after the Citizen's United decision), and a large number of them have been funded from "right-wing" sources. These organizations have been very lax about filing the proper paperwork about their donors, and in fact, have been downright secretive. And many of them are engaging in activities that very much skirt the line (if not cross it entirely) of political advocacy. The quantity of money (and number of organizations) engaged in this kind of shadowy advocacy/political support is very seriously tilted towards right-wing sources.

The fact is this: if you want to engage in political activity, then fine. Government can and should not have any say about your content. But if you want to get tax-free benefits, then there's a certain set of rules that you MUST play by, and claiming that this is suppressing Free Speech because we won't give you the benefit while you violate the rules is sophistry.

All 503(c).4 organizations need more scrutiny. I'm pretty sure that the IRS was engaging in the equivalent of racial profiling here, with the added notion of pleasing some political higher-ups. But at the end of the day, if those 503(c).4 organizations were breaking the law, then it's hard to say the IRS wasn't doing it's job by auditing them.

Re:It's NOT suppressing Free Speech

[clonehappy]

But at the end of the day, if those 503(c).4 organizations were breaking the law, then it's hard to say the IRS wasn't doing it's job by auditing them.

I agree for the most part, except for the fact that they weren't breaking the law!

From the following link, the IRS investigator Lerner had to say: "150 of the cases have been closed and no group had its tax-exempt status revoked..."

They "apologized". Well isn't that sweet?

Re:It's NOT suppressing Free Speech

[Alsee]

except for the fact that they weren't breaking the law!

From the following link, the IRS investigator Lerner had to say: "150 of the cases have been closed and no group had its tax-exempt status revoked..."

Wow, you deserve some sort of award for that brazen quote mining. And what are the words you cut out with that dot dot dot?
"150 of the cases have been closed and no group had its tax-exempt status revoked [dot dot dot] though some withdrew their applications."

It sounds like some groups were attempting to break the law (perhaps due to ignorance or error in what non-profits are permitted to do), and withdrew their tax-exempt-applications when IRS investigations caught their violation. Although at the moment we have no indication whether or not Tea Party groups were among those withdrawing tax-exempt claims.

-

Re:Very un-PC

[DaHat]

They didn't target a political organization

Correct... they didn't explicitly target the Tea Party Patriots of Golden Valley, MN (to make up a name off the top of my head)... they did something far more sinister, as you say:

they did a keyword search to find anything with the words, "tea party" or related and audited that

They targeted specific words of their target group they sought to punish.

Try that another way... would you still be saying "the IRS didn't target a specific race!" if the tax guy doing keyword searches for people named Juan, Jose, Jesus, Javier, Maria, or Consuelo?

Regardless of your political background

[Karmashock]

This should seriously worry you. Remember that anything used against one side can be used against the other.

Want liberal groups harassed by the IRS? Or should we do something about protecting political speech and preventing federal agencies from being used partisan chess pieces.

How can we trust the FBI or the CIA if we assume they're loyal to a political party and not the American people and the law?

This is non-functional.

Re:Very un-PC

[trims]

MoveOn.org isn't solely a 503(c).4 organization. They're very explicitly split into two branches: the main site, which engages in all the permissible organizational and democratic (small 'd') stuff, and the MoveOn PAC, which explicitly is a registered PAC and does promote candidates and specific issues. Their books are separate, and open, and the sections of the web site where PAC vs 503 stuff goes on is clearly demarked. Donations are also clearly marked as to whether you're giving to the PAC or the 503.

The problem with many of the newer 503(c).4 organizations is that they:

(a) don't file the appropriate paperwork, so it's hard to see if they're complying with the reporting and transparency requirements

(b) Engage in activities that are, at best, grey advocacy, and at worst, outright political support of individuals and issues.

I do agree that we need more auditing, and that the selection of who to target was wrong. But that doesn't mean there isn't a serious problem on the Right around this, particularly since there's been a whole lot more money poured into Right Wing 503(c).4 orgs in the past 4 years, and also because the vast majority of these organizations seem to be very heavily politicized, and much less socially-oriented.

FYI - laws say it's fine for a 503(c).4 to advocate certain general positions (i.e. "Clean Water", "Less Coal, more Wind", and do what used to be called "Community Organizing"), so long as they did not promote specific candidates or parties or legislation/initiatives. The problem has been that may 503(c).4 orgs aren't obeying those restrictions. That is, you see a lot of Left-Wing 503(c) doing general voter registration and promoting Big Causes. Recent Right Wing stuff has heavily been oriented around "Defeat taxation" and "Stop Immigration" and the like, which leads (or is intended) to be mostly legislative lobbying, which is NOT OK for a 503(c).4

Definition of 'social welfare'

[quantaman]

"These groups claim tax-exempt status under section 501 (c) (4) of the federal tax code, which is for social welfare groups. Unlike other charitable groups, these organizations are allowed to participate in political activities but their primary activity must be social welfare.
[...]As part of the review, staffers look for signs that groups are participating in political activity. If so, IRS agents take a closer look to make sure that politics isn't the group's primary activity."

From that description all the tea party groups, along with the liberal counterparts like moveon.org, shouldn't be tax-exempt because unless I misunderstand them their primary purpose is pretty damn political. Of course you can't enforce the law against only one set of groups but I wonder if the workers aren't being penalized because they were the only ones actually doing their jobs.

Re:Not trutly bias, not punitive. More like profil

[centipedes.in.my.vag]

It was objectively unacceptable the entire time, both in essence and in public opinion. You're touching on some of the most talked about issues in America - things that get a whole shit-load of attention and action against them, so no, it didn't "become unacceptable" suddenly and there isn't an air of acceptance when this goes the other way. Stop rationalizing why this is acceptable, it's not.

Re:You cannot have it both ways.

[Anonymous Coward]

You know what, as an outsider, I think the real problem is that the US has completely lost sight of what "Left wing" and "Right wing" or "Liberal" and "Conservative" mean. Hell, you're applying political labels to a non-political sporting event: how is that rational?

People need to stop screaming at each other and tossing labels around like "Tea bagger" and "Libtard", because you're helping no one.

People are usually ok with it if it isn't them

[Sycraft-fu]

You find a lot of tribalism in political life, particularly these days. People tend to view their group as the good guys, the other group as the bad guys. So because the "good guys" are doing it to the "bad guys" that makes it good. It is ok, it needed to be done because those bad guys are so bad!

Of course if the situation were reversed they'd howl and scream.

Re:seems reasonable to me

[ttucker]

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.

I have a news flash for you, people in the Tea Party complain about paying taxes because they actually do.

Exactly.

[Anonymous Coward]

And this illustrates what I was trying to tell "US" - when the W. Bush administration was grasping for more power for the Executive branch, I warned, "All powers they get and abuse will be abused by the other guy."

And here we are.

And the next President will have even more power.

Re:What the h-e double hockey are you talking abou

[ebno-10db]

Right wingers represent the ruling class. The 1%. The ones with money.

The right wing represents some of the ruling class (e.g. oil interests) but the "left wing" (actually Democratic party) does a pretty good job of sucking up to other parts of it. You realize that Wall Street heavily backed Obama in 2008, right? Obama's AG wouldn't see a financial crime if it jumped up and down in front of him. Obama's former SecTreas, Turbo Timmy, would sell his grandmother if he thought it would help the banks. Also, tech mostly supports Dems. Remember you're a xenophobe if you oppose the H-1B cheap guest worker program.

This sucks. The Dems tried playing a little hardball

A little hardball? This is downright Nixonian. And if it matters, there are many ways that I lean pretty far to the left. There is no excuse for suppression of political speech.

about how the police and FBI worked together to shut down OWS and the anti-1% movement

But the country was threatened by a bunch of people camping out in a park. Yeah, the FBI and police coordination, as though there were some national threat instead of a few local differences, was pretty disgusting. NYC Mayor-for-Life Bloomberg sending in SWAT teams at 2AM as though the protesters were some sort of incredibly dangerous characters that could only be taken by military force. They also did everything they could to keep the press away from that, undoubtedly for their own protection.

However, the FBI that helped with that was in the executive branch run by Obama. Don't forget that. And regardless of who was responsible for it, political suppression of your team doesn't justify political suppression of the other team. If we start thinking like that we might as well burn the Constitution.

Re:What the h-e double hockey are you talking abou

[the eric conspiracy]

It's not Nixonian until you come up with the tape of Obama telling his aides to sic the IRS on the people on his enemies list.

Re:Very un-PC

[SuperAlgae]

The IRS was right to apologize, but they apologized for the wrong thing. They should have put EVERY political group seeking tax-exempt status through this kind of scrutiny. The fact that these groups (both left and right) get to avoid taxes while manipulating elections is embarassing. Of course, the real problem is that they have so much power and so little transparency to start with, but if the only victory we can get right now is to make them pay taxes, let's start with that.

Re:Very un-PC

[uniquename72]

You seem to be implying that the tea party groups investigated were not doing so. Care to cite some specific evidence of both?

Michelle Bachmann's own staff is testifying against her about spending irregularities. Sharon Angle (from right here in the great state of Nevada) has already paid $25,000 in fines for spending her campaign funds illegally.

Those are the only 2 Tea Partiers I can name.

I'm a conservative who was once very hopeful that the Tea Party might help turn around the Republican Party (which is more about expanding the government and the debt than anything else). Then I went to a Tea Party rally, where I got to hear all about how it's the duty of all Americans to NOT pay taxes, and how the niggers are taking over.

So yeah, audit them. All of them.

However that line is impossible to believe

[dbIII]

Most tea party members tend to lean libertarian, who are generally more socially liberal than Democrats.

Oh really? Ask a hard core libertarian what they think of a minimum wage or government provided social services, then go through all the steps that led up to the recent factory collapse in Bangladesh with them and see if they object to it. That building owner was living the libertarian dream where his government couldn't stop him doing anything he wanted by enforcing pesky regulations.
That's not saying that libertarians are evil, instead it's just pointing out that they are far too naive to understand what evil would rise unopposed in the sort of society they are advocating.

Re:However that line is impossible to believe

[SuperKendall]

Ask a hard core libertarian what they think of a minimum wage

That's a fiscal, not social, issue. Why would a libertarian want to be against hiring teenagers, which is the real-world effect of a high minimum wage? Not everyone needs to live on what they are paid, high minimum wages ignore this fact.

or government provided social services

Again a fiscal, not social, issue. Why can you not be fully for abortion without wanting the government to fund them?

Private groups have proven they can do a far better job of providing social services than the government.

go through all the steps that led up to the recent factory collapse in Bangladesh

Corruption is the base of that more than anything else. Libertarians are not "for" corruption thank you very much, and also "thanks" for using 600 dead factory workers as leverage for your arguments.

instead it's just pointing out that they are far too naive to understand what evil

It seems we are far less naive than you.

Re:However that line is impossible to believe

[vux984]

That's a fiscal, not social, issue.

Actually its both.

Not everyone needs to live on what they are paid, high minimum wages ignore this fact.

And advocates of no minimum wage ignores the fact that MILLIONS of people ARE living on those jobs in the real actual world.

Again a fiscal, not social, issue.

Depends which government provided social service one looks at. Medicare, Unemployment, Welfare... these are fiscal issues yes, but also social issues.

Gay marriage is a pretty pure social issue though, and Tea Party folks aren't lining up to support it, so your argument that tea partiers are socially liberal comes through pretty thin.

Private groups have proven they can do a far better job of providing social services than the government.

No, they haven't. That's a very controversial claim you've just made. That you can state it as if it was a settled fact is just silly.

Corruption is the base of that more than anything else.

Corruption is how it got past the regulations. Regulations that many libertarians argue shouldn't exist in the first place. Eliminating the corruption won't solve the problem if you eliminate it by eliminating the regulations too.

It seems we are far less naive than you.

I sometimes wish libertarians could have the world they wish for. As long as I don't have to live in it. They could use the wake up call.

Re:Very un-PC

[Bartles]

By the IRS?

It is time to end all of this tax-exempt nonsense

[cpotoso]

Why is that tax-exempt status is granted to organizations that then turn around an pay handsomely to their CEOs et al.? And avoid corporate taxes at that? Why am *I* forced to subsidize someone else's choices when they donate $$ to a tax-exempt organization (be it a church, or tea party nut-bag)? Yes, I am subsidizing your nut-choice because you reduce your taxes (hence increase the proportion of my burden) by donating to that nut-bag organization. IT IS TIME TO END ALL TAX-EXEMPT STATUS, and TO END TAX REBATES TO DONATIONS.

This is a distortion of what happened

[WOOFYGOOFY]

You're playing games with the word *they*. They , the offenders- were identified as low level workers. They- the IRS- was not aware of what *they* - the culpable people- were doing.

So when you say *they* did this, be clear who *they* are. It was not the IRS as an organization, from the top-down. It was low level workers.

In case you're from Mars- this is frequently how organizations work with Earthlings.

You can DEPEND on the fact that this has been done in the opposite way to the opposite side before. If this kind of abuse is permitted structurally, then this is not the first time.

The solution has to be structural, because it's structural problem (which permitted people to do this). The last thing anyone wants is the IRS being used as a tool for personal vendettas. No one wants that and frankly I am surprised that this is not strictly made impossible and frankly I expect them to *make it so*.

Notice that this tactic of attacking an organization via the deeds iof its lowest workers s very similar to what was done with ACORN. After repeatedly fishing for a low level employee who would act inappropriately on camera, James O'Keefe finally settled for someone who appeared to be acting inappropriately (but who actually called the police after O'Keefe and his confederate left).

Of course they're going to try to gin this up into a second term killing "scandal" *it goes all the way to the top!!!* * we have the smoking gun!!!*

It's what they did to Clinton with with Monica Lewinsky. They take as their model what happened to Nixon with Watergate. They have tried this with *every single Democratic President * since Watergate. The difference is of course that Nixon was a genuine crook who genuinely broke the law and genuinely tried to use the power of the government to cover it up and genuinely provoked a Constitutional crisis.