IRS investigation for Conservative Targeting

[zraver]

May have to update this thread a little to: IRS targets conservative and liberal groups both

Documents show IRS also screened liberal groups - SFGate

Dozens if not hundreds of conservative groups targeted, less than a handful of liberal groups targeted and the ones targeted are hardly democratic establishment groups. Occupy is decidedly not pro-Obama who they view as in the pocket of the banks.

[tbm3fan]

For it to be meaningful a comparison needs to be made as to how long it took for those identified as conservative vs those identified as liberal surely? Wasn't that the import of the original argument? And wasn't that issue which the Cincinnati branch was admitted to be doing? i.e. delaying conservative groups while flicking liberal ones through?

My take on it was that IRS employees tasked with separating which applications for tax exempt status under a 501(c)(4), were truly a bona fide social welfare organizations versus a political group in hiding, were not given clear direction. I noted also that at the time the commissioner of the IRS was a Bush appointee. In the past the IRS has targeted Greenpeace and the NAACP on the liberal side. Kind of works against the political targeting claim in my book. I also noted that Issa made accusations, which would come out when the transcript of the investigation was released, but he seemed to get sidetrack constantly.

My other take on this is that many of the organizations applying for a 501(c)(4) are actually political organizations trying to masquerade as a social welfare organization courtesy the Citizen's United ruling. Personally everyone of them across the entire spectrum should be denied the tax exempt status of a social welfare organization. Just as people rail against government surveillance I rail against any organization that wants to hide their donors identity from the public when I am going to the polls. I consider them to be a greater threat to me and open government than the government mining phone numbers which they could ultimately influence possibly.

[tbm3fan]

Dozens if not hundreds of conservative groups targeted, less than a handful of liberal groups targeted and the ones targeted are hardly democratic establishment groups. Occupy is decidedly not pro-Obama who they view as in the pocket of the banks.

Sorry to dissent, but until the day comes when an actual list of groups targeted is published, then there is no way I am going to believe hundreds. More likely dozens across the spectrum. How pro-Obama figures in it confounds me since I thought it was liberal groups. However, if you are correct in calling them pro-Obama groups then would not anti-Obama groups be also correct? Two sides of the same coin so to speak.

Next someone has to show me how it was possible for someone in the Obama administration to pressure the Bush appointed IRS Commissioner in 2010 when this started. As I said my take is that IRS agents will go after anything that quacks like a tax dodge.

Last, every god damned one of these groups from both sides, are lying through their teeth about doing social welfare work. I also don't give a damn if the groups are split 50/50 or 70/30 between conservative and liberal if that's the way it is. Everyone should be nailed to the wall. Now that's being conservative as I am not giving anyone the benefit of the doubt.

[tbm3fan]

One last thing and that is my gut feeling is that many of these groups are more of a sham for raking in money pure and simple. Then, just like those phony charities, they have high administrative costs and CEO pay. Just a notch or two above Madoff.

Maybe I could start one and pay myself a $1 million dollar salary and have a couple of $500,000 lobbyists handing out $10,000 to a couple of dozen Senators and Representatives. For my social welfare work send out a couple of mobile clinics giving out free eye exams. Anyone interested in lobbying work?

[zraver]

My take on it was that IRS employees tasked with separating which applications for tax exempt status under a 501(c)(4), were truly a bona fide social welfare organizations versus a political group in hiding, were not given clear direction.

Contradicted by IRS employee testimony that they understood they were to pass through liberal groups.

I noted also that at the time the commissioner of the IRS was a Bush appointee. In the past the IRS has targeted Greenpeace and the NAACP on the liberal side. Kind of works against the political targeting claim in my book. I also noted that Issa made accusations, which would come out when the transcript of the investigation was released, but he seemed to get sidetrack constantly.

One of, it accerlated under the Obama appointee. More importantly is the huge amount of smoke when the head of the IRS employees union visits the Whitehouse on numerous occasions under Obama and suddenly tea party groups which are hostile to the liberal agenda and the IRS since the champion a flat tax are suddenly targeted. And it is hundreds from the IG report. It likely had a huge election effect since the massive tea party grass roots efforts were effectively quashed.

My other take on this is that many of the organizations applying for a 501(c)(4) are actually political organizations trying to masquerade as a social welfare organization courtesy the Citizen's United ruling. Personally everyone of them across the entire spectrum should be denied the tax exempt status of a social welfare organization. Just as people rail against government surveillance I rail against any organization that wants to hide their donors identity from the public when I am going to the polls. I consider them to be a greater threat to me and open government than the government mining phone numbers which they could ultimately influence possibly.

An organization can be both politically active and engaged in social welfare. More importantly, fine investigate them, but don't just shelve the applications for years on end which is what the IRS did- on orders from Washington according to IRS employee testimony.

[zraver]

292/100% to 6/30%.... that is corruption and bias.

Refuting Democratic suggestions that progressive groups were also swept up in the IRS probe of the tax status of Tea Party organizations, the Treasury Department's inspector general has revealed that just six progressive groups were targeted compared to 292 conservative groups.

In a letter to congressional Democrats, the inspector general also said that 100 percent of Tea Party groups seeking special tax status were put under IRS review, while only 30 percent of the progressive groups felt the same pressure.

The Wednesday letter to the top Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee punched a huge hole in Democratic claims that progressive groups were targeted as much as the Tea Party groups from May 2010-May 2012, the height of the Tea Party movement.

The letter from the Treasury Department Inspector General for Tax Administration revealed that there just weren't many progressive groups who even sought special tax exempt status. A total of 20 sought it, and six were probed. All 292 Tea Party groups, meanwhile, were part of the IRS witchhunt.

Sign Up for the Paul Bedard newsletter!
"At this point, the evidence shows us that conservative groups were not only flagged, but targeted and abused by the IRS," said Sarah Swinehart spokeswoman for the Ways and Means Committee.

"As we gather the facts, we will follow them wherever they lead us. Chairman [Rep. David] Camp encourages all groups, regardless of political affiliation, that feel they may have been targeted to come forward and share their story."

Democrats had noticed that the word "progressives" was on the so-called Be On The Lookout, or BOLO, list. But the Treasury IG suggested that the list wasn't used.

The operative paragraph from the IG 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 timeframe of our audit.


Treasury: IRS targeted 292 Tea Party groups, just 6 progressive groups | WashingtonExaminer.com

[Doktor]

Damn tea party members all look fishy ;)

[zraver]

I don't like her politics in moot cases but she gets this one right.

Rep Duckworth is a double amputee combat vet who tears a IRS contractor apart for claiming a service connected disability of 40% for a sprained ankle in prep school.

Dem Rep. Tammy Duckworth Shreds Contractor Who Claimed Veterans Disability | RealClearPolitics

[DonBelt]

When you pass laws prohibiting the type of political spending and organizing that Conservatives do, like was done with the "McCain Feingold" Act, then task the IRS and other agencies to harass and prevent conservatives from organizing or politicking in the ways that are left- using nonprifits like the left does, there can be no other word for it but oppression. The fairness doctrine being used to try to shut down conservative talk radio, while the Gov't supports left leaning "public" television and radio. Napolitano and the DHS advising that people with tea-party bumper stickers, Gadsen flags, NRA stickers and Vets were potential terrorists. If the ideals of the left are so correct and popular, there should be no need to resort to this sort of activity- the truth speaks for itself. This fiasco with the IRS and other Gov't agencies targeting conservatives and perceived conservatives kicked in high gear after the SCOTUS struck down major portions of the McCain/Feingold act. The pres pitched his little fit at the SCOTUS during the State of the Union address and decided since he couldn't silence his opposition thru legislative acts they would do so by executive fiat and lawsuits. (my opinion, not proven fact)
There is no shortage of open debate between opposing views on this board, it should be the same way in the political forum. A debate of ideas and observation of results. If your view isn't shared by others or shown to be wrong or unworkable that's just the way it is. You can't go and make yourself right by supressing or shouting over the views of others.