Michael

Have politicians gone too far in trying to ruin people's lives for political gain?

So far, the acting director of the IRS has resigned when it appears that he was not involved and wasn't in charge when it occurred (a Bush appointee was the IRS director until 2012 since congress was filibustering Obama's appointments) and congress wants many more heads to roll and is considering having filing criminal charges filed against individuals when it appears on the surface that this was nothing more than a simple procedural mistake.

In the 1950s, 501(c)(4) organizations were allowed tax exempt status. When congress authorized this type of group, it stated that in order to get the tax exempt status, a group had to be "exclusively" involved in social and welfare needs of it's citizens. During that time, civil rights and other movements were very active and were granted that status but occasionally the leader of the group gave a political speech and the IRS questioned whether the intent of congress meant to forbid tax exempt status in those situations. The IRS decided that congress did not intend to forbid tax exempt status in those situations so they changed the word "exclusively" to "primarily" to allow for some leeway in granting the tax exempt status.

Over the years, the definition of "primarily" has evolved as well as the meaning of "social and welfare needs of it's citizens" and therefore the groups became more and more political where "primarily" became to mean 51% and "social and welfare needs of it's citizens" became very blurred.

After the Citizens United win in the supreme court, purely political organizations started filing for 501(c)(4) status claiming that they were primarily involved in the "social and welfare needs of it's citizens" and that most if it's campaign were for the "social and welfare needs of it's citizens".

The Cincinnati office of the IRS evaluates tax exempt organizations but in 2010, the number of applications for 501(c)(4) status doubled but the IRS office had the same number of employees to evaluate the applications. In order to process the applications and since the IRS had some doubts that some political organizations were following the letter of the law, they wanted extra scrutiny of political organizations. Since many of the groups that were applying were "Tea Party" groups, someone apparently suggested that they should perform searches on names such as "Tea Party" or "Patriots" to find a large number political organizations that could get extra scrutiny. Although private businesses such as insurance companies do similar things every day, this could be considered as "profiling" or "targeting" specific groups and that is not allowed to be done by the government.

Although searches were done on "Tea Party" groups, all right wing groups were approved in 2010 and only 2 political organizations were denied and both were left learning groups.

In my opinion, the scandal is a "non issue" other than a mistaken "procedural issue" but I suspect that congress will spend hundreds of millions of dollars on multiple hearings over the next couple of years trying to ruin the lives of many people over a simple mistake in judgment in order to gain political advantage.

sir_eccles

Rationally you are going to be suspicious when there is a flood of new groups being set up and I think they probably did the right thing in checking them. They did it clumsily though which opened up the whole thing to political point scoring.

I am convinced the gop is no longer interested in running the country everything is geared to painting this as a lame duck president who cant get anything done and is mired in scandal. I hope it back fires but I don't think the average voter is smart enough to see through it.

RoadWarriorFromLP

It's absolutely a non-story. But it fits in nicely with the GOP strategy of throwing a bunch of crap at the wall, in the hope that some of it -- any of it -- will stick. What we end up with are trivialities such as blowjobs dominating the headlines.

I do some business with non-profits from time to time, so I understand the issue: EVERY single organization that wants to be a non-profit is scrutinized by the IRS, because it's the IRS that approves or denies non-profit status.

This is akin to complaining that the Department of Motor Vehicles is "targeting" teenagers because they need to pass tests in order to get a license. It makes no sense at all. There's no scandal, and Obama deserves some blame for throwing people under the bus for doing their jobs.

scrubbedexpat099

Totally coincidental that the organisation targeted were all non Dem supporters.

There was an interesting article in the Guardian about the lame duck issue, yesterday I think.

Certainly as time passes it will be harder and harder for the WH to get their supporters to tow the line.

Michael

I agree that Obama's made a poor moral judgment by not supporting the current acting IRS director (he still can't get one appointed since congress keeps filibustering his nominations).

For political reasons, I doubt that congress will call Douglas Shulman (director of IRS until November 2012) to testify since he is a republican and there wouldn't be any political gain by blaming him.

Michael

The democrats have also been acting shameful in this non scandal for political reasons. To deflect criticism of the administration, Obama made one of his strongest speeches condemning the actions of the IRS. Many other democrats has also condemned their actions.

None have stated that "we should wait and see what happened" since that would likely be interpreted as supporting "targeting" of opposing political views by the right giving them more political ammunition.

In the past, congress has been shameless but in my opinion, the investigation of this non scandal is probably only second to the Joe McCarthy "Un-American Activities Committee" hearings.

RoadWarriorFromLP

It's easy to vilify the IRS because -- let's face it -- they really do act like bastards much of the time.

But for whatever reason, the right-wingers have got it locked into their heads that lobbying for their pet causes is supposed to be a tax-exempt activity. Funny how the people who do the most whining about subsidies are now openly whining because they desperately want a subsidy for themselves. Irony ain't one of their strong suits.

Michael

And by using the IRS non scandal to indicate that the government is out of control, we must now be worried about the "Blackhawk Helicopters" chasing us down.

scrubbedexpat099

I have a feeling that if the GOP were in charge we would be talking about Move On etc.

I find it very difficult to think that directly or indirectly there are not political shenanigans behind this.

scrubbedexpat099

I have a feeling that if the GOP were in charge we would be talking about Move On etc.

I find it very difficult to think that directly or indirectly there are not political shenanigans behind this.

Michael

What was funny was that several weeks ago, a republican congressman was blasting ACORN as being very evil. He didn't realize that ACORN hasn't been in existence for over 2 years.

theOAP

Hmmmmm, this may be a tad too strong.

Is the GOP being opportunistic and making hay for purely political reasons? Obviously. Are they playing on the average American's fear of the IRS? Obviously. Has there been mismanagement, poor over site, and a large amount of finger pointing? Obviously. But ask any American abroad about 'OVDI FAQ 35', 'guilt by location', or the 'legality of IGA's', and they will suggest the IRS (and Congress) may have some explaining to do.

My fear is this circus will divert the chance to uncover some real issues, for both Congress and the IRS, and become just another spectacle in the tiresome game of political infighting. I suspect if it can be maintained as simply more of the same old thing, there will be a few folks who breath a large sigh of relief.

"Looks like Congress is fighting amongst itself again. Hope the IRS gets reamed! What's happening on X factor?"

Michael

The McCarthy era was destroying peoples lives with absolutely no proof but only accusations and of all people, Bobby Kennedy was on that committee and didn't dare to speak out. I see a similar parallel happening with the IRS scandal where democrats and even the justice department may allow criminal charges to be brought against some people in the IRS on the flimsiest excuse. During the McCarthy hearing, no one at that time wanted to appear to be on the side of the evil communists and now no one wants to appear on the side of the evil IRS so that is a parallel.

Although the Benghazi hearings are purely political, will go for ever, extremely boring, and on the news nightly, it is just a political circus. Although there has been accusations by some on the commitee that the state department is overrun by the "Muslim Brotherhood", everybody knows that is just some nut job talking. However if I hear that another bomb will be dropped in the hearings, I may be the one to drop the bomb.

As far as the current congress doing anything useful, we all know that is impossible.

theOAP

The McCarthy hearings were sinister. They destroyed people from all walks of life. I see the actions of IRS agents in Cincinnati (and those in charge) possibly more akin to Donald Segretti's actions in Watergate, college frat pranks brought into the real world, if these were in fact the intentions (unproven as of yet). If it would be proven to be true, then the misuse of power is maddening, but I have a feeling we'll never know one way or the other. Cannon fodder. To use your phrase from a previous post, "we should wait and see what happen[s]" regards the outcome for the people involved. (Please don't misinterpret this as making lite of the situation, there's a real issue on 'political contributions', 'tax exemptions, and 'social causes'.) Incidently, although in Washington, Steven Miller was in charge of the IRS division in Cincinnati when the 'offences' occurred (from his testimony to Congress). But the line 'do you want these people in charge of your medical records' is really pushing for a back door in an attempt to repeal Obamacare. I suspect this is a GOP (not so) hidden agenda.

"As far as the current congress doing anything useful, we all know that is impossible." Agreed, sadly.

Leslie

This.

Groups that (allegedly) oppose taxation, and just about everything the government does in general, feeling entitled to taxpayer subsidized welfare for their thinly veiled PACs.