Did the IRS show favoritism towards the Tea Party?

[Bjorn Against]

Last edited Wed May 15, 2013, 11:52 PM - Edit history (2)

You read the question in my subject line correctly. The evidence I have seen does not show that the Tea Party was treated worse than other political groups seeking tax exempt status, instead I am seeing what appears to be a clear example of the Tea Party actually being shown favoritism over other political groups.

The Inspector General's report revealed that 2/3 of the groups that were scrutinized by the IRS were in no way affiliated with the Tea Party yet they were all targeted. Why is it that the IRS has only apologized to the Tea Party and not to any other groups who were targeted for scrutiny?

Emerge America was one of the Democratic leaning groups that was targeted and they actually lost their tax exempt status while every Tea Party group was allowed to keep theirs.

If the Tea Party deserves an apology why don't the non-Tea Party majority deserve an apology as well?

To be honest I don't personally think any of the groups deserve an apology, but if the IRS is going to apologize to the right-wing then they sure as hell better be able to give an explanation as to why no left leaning groups deserve an apology for facing the same scrutiny. If they can not do that they seem to me to be biased and it is a bias that actually favors the Tea Party.

[Tx4obama]

1. Liberal Groups ‘Progress Texas,’ Emerge America,’ And ‘Clean Elections Texas’ Targeted By IRS

Liberal Groups ‘Progress Texas,’ Emerge America,’ And ‘Clean Elections Texas’ Targeted By IRS

-snip-

“Progress Texas and the Tea Party strongly disagree on the role of government,” the group’s executive director, Ed Espinoza, said in a statement. “Yet, when we applied for tax-exempt status, Progress Texas received the same type of additional scrutiny that Tea Party groups are complaining about. The similar treatment indicates the IRS was likely addressing a flood of 501c4 applications after Citizens United, and undermines the paranoid notion that Tea Party groups were singled out.”

An IRS letter…published by Progress Texas online Thursday showed the liberal group was given 22 days to respond to a list of 21 questions. Some of the questions included up to nine sub-questions.

The questions resembled the list of 35 questions (PDF) sent to the Liberty Township Tea Party, which has complained of IRS harassment.

Though the line of questioning was generally the same, there were some key differences between the lists of questions…

Bloomberg reported Tuesday that at least two other liberal groups, Emerge America and Clean Elections Texas, also received additional scrutiny from the IRS.

http://www.alan.com/2013/05/15/liberal-groups-progress-texas-emerge-america-and-clean-elections-texas-targeted-by-irs/

[Exultant Democracy]

2. Yes 1000 times yes.

[Electric Monk]

3. Yeah, when it happens to GreenPeace or PETA, etc, the M$M doesn't give a shit, either.

but when it's the Koch brothers baby, then the coverage is, well, you've seen it.

[Old and In the Way]

4. We need to be wary of citizen based initiatives....

Koch funded RW political astro-turf camapigns...not so much. Because morons will vote against their best interests as long as they are told that 'democrats' support these positions. The morons think of politics like sports: Red Sox vs. Yankees. As long as the Koch Brothers can convince the morons to vote against their best interests, we are fucked as a nation.

[hack89]

5. The IRS inspector general says that the Tea Party groups were treated inappropriately

following an extensive internal investigation. Why don't we take his word for it?

[Bjorn Against]

7. So all the Tea Party groups scrutinized were treated unfairly but none of the other groups were?

The majority of the groups scrutinized were not Tea Party groups, I find it really hard to believe that all the Tea Party groups were treated so much differently that they warranted an apology but not one single other person who was scrutinized that was not a Teabagger deserves an apology.

[hack89]

13. Why don't you read the report?

it is all there. The Tea Party groups were treated differently, to include providing information other groups did not have to provide. Read the report.

[Bjorn Against]

17. I skimmed through the report and it only reinforces the point I was making

The report does not say much of anything about how other groups who were not affiliated with the Tea Party were handled, it never explicitly states that Democratic groups were not scrutinized in the same way. Why did the report only focus on one side of the issue? The IRS owes us an explanation as to why a group like the Tea Party deserves an apology and an Inspector General's report focused nearly entirely on them, but none of the other groups deserve an apology or any attention payed to how they were treated.

[hack89]

19. It explicilty says the Tea Party groups were made to provide information

that other groups did not have to provide. It also explicitly says that every Tea Party application was flagged for further review while 147 non-Tea Party applications that should have been flagged were not flagged.

Instead of skimming, perhaps you should take the time to actually read and study the report.

[Bjorn Against]

21. Where does it say that no other groups besides the Tea Party had to provide this information?

It may say that "other groups" did not have to provide this information, but I am really struggling to find any part of the report that says no left leaning groups were asked the same questions.

We know that political groups that may be crossing the line into violating the terms of the 501c(4) status are going to be scrutinized more than groups that are clearly non-political, this only makes sense.

[Chathamization]

23. Not only does it not say that

but it turns out that the IRS sent the same letters to Democratic-leaning groups:

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-05-14/irs-sent-same-letter-to-democrats-that-fed-tea-party-row-taxes

[Bjorn Against]

24. Exactly. Why does the report not mention the other groups that received the letter?

[Chathamization]

25. Because of this:

"TIGTA initiated this audit based on concerns expressed by members of Congress."

Tea Party representatives send investigators on a witch hunt; after concocting a scandal they get people on the left and in the media to join in.

[Bjorn Against]

26. Exactly, you clearly get what is going on here.

Another manufactured scandal.

A bit belated welcome to DU, good to have you here.

[Chathamization]

29. Thanks.

This is reminding me of the Clinton years - launch as many investigations as you can, hoping that you can find some half finished draft e-mail somewhere to spin to the press, ignoring all the past failed and fizzled attacks while peddling the latest manufactured outrage. I just wish more people - at least on the left - would realize that this is what they do.

[Chathamization]

10. They also said they didn't look at whether or not other groups were treated inappropriately

which was the OP's point. Why did they only check to see if bad things were done to the Tea Party, and ignore what happened to other groups?

[hack89]

14. Read the report. It has all those details.

it did compare them to other groups. They did determine that the Tea Party groups were treated differently - for example they were made to provide information other groups were not required to provide. They did a statistical analysis which showed that there were a 147 case that should have been flagged for further investigation but were not while every Tea Party application was flagged.

[Chathamization]

18. Did you read it? Not only does it not have those details

they specifically state that they didn't check:

"We did not review the use of other named organizations on the BOLO listing to determine if their use was appropriate."

Again, this was the OP's point. They checked to see whether the Tea Party groups were treated inappropriately. They state in their report that they didn't check whether or not this was the case for other organizations on the same list.

This part is also interesting:

"According to the Director, Rulings and Agreements, the fact that the team of specialists worked applications that did not involve the Tea Party, Patriots, or 9/12 groups demonstrated that the IRS was not politically biased in its identification of applications for processing by the team of specialists."

[hack89]

20. It explicitly says the Tea Party groups were made to provide information

that other groups did not have to provide. It also explicitly says that every Tea Party application was flagged for further review while 147 non-Tea Party applications that should have been flagged were not flagged.

[Chathamization]

22. And it explicitly says "We did not review the use of other named organizations on the BOLO listing"

What part of this do you find so hard to understand? The Tea Party applications were flagged because they were on the BOLO listing, along with other groups. The report states it didn't look at other organizations who were also flagged for being on the BOLO list. Your response is that the Tea Party was treated differently from those groups, because it was...flagged for being on the BOLO list. Logic?

Yes, groups on the BOLO list were flagged and treated differently than groups that weren't on it. No one's saying otherwise. The question is, why did the report review Tea Party groups that were flagged for being on that list, while ignoring other groups that were also flagged for being on the list? And please don't respond again with "because the Tea Party was flagged for being on that list."

[hack89]

27. What other groups would that be?

This is the orginal BOLO from the report

“Tea Party,” “Patriots” or “9/12 Project ” is referenced in the case file

Issues include government spending, government debt or taxes

Education of the public by advocacy/lobbying to “make America a better place to live”

Statement in the case file criticize how the country is being run

Is there an expanded BOLO that I am overlooking?

[Chathamization]

28. Yep.

The report, which isn't well written, makes it clear that there were other criteria/organizations in the BOLO:

Unit began developing a spreadsheet that would become known as the “Be On the Look Out” listing (hereafter referred to as the BOLO listing), which included the emerging issue of Tea
Party applications.

The criteria in the BOLO listing were Tea Party organizations applying for I.R.C. § 501(c)(3) or I.R.C. § 501(c)(4) status. Based on our review of other BOLO listing criteria, the use of
organization names on the BOLO listing is not unique to potential political cases.

We did not review the use of other named organizations on the BOLO listing to determine if their use was appropriate.

I haven't been able to find the various BOLOs yet, but hopefully they'll be released before too long.

[John1956PA]

6. Yes. The IRS and the administration have overdone the apologies to the Tea Party groups.

Most of the Tea Party groups applying for 501(c)4 recognition were granted same after what I believe was a reasonable level of heightened scrutiny brought on by the obvious fact that the Tea Party is a political movement. To pass muster as a "social welfare" organization under 501(c)4, a given group must establish that its primary purpose involves assisting citizens, not lobbying for legislation or supporting candidates. In the face of a deluge of 501(c)4 applications in the wake of Citizens United, the IRS acted properly in reviewed its criteria for granting 501(c)4 exemptions to seemingly political-oriented groups from both ends of the spectrum. The process of revising the criteria went through some fits and starts in 2010 and 2011, but I do not think that the relatively few delays in approving 501(c)4 applications submitted by certain legitimate social welfare organizations were the result of systemic bad faith on the part of the IRS.

[hack89]

15. Relatively few delays? Read the report

the delays were uniformly significant - in many cases over 12 months.

[BlueCheese]

8. According to the report...

About 70% of applications are approved without much trouble. The inspector general determined, however, that virtually all Tea Party applications were sent for additional review. So they were treated worse than the general application. (However, without knowing what happened to liberal groups' applications, it's not a strict apples-to-apples comparison.)

Saying that 2/3 (or 3/4) of reviewed applications are Tea Party ones isn't that informative, without knowing what fraction of the original applications were Tea Party ones. It would be like saying that if most people who are pulled over by the police are white (a hypothetical statement-- don't know if it's true or not), then the police are favoring minorities.

[Bjorn Against]

11. There are limits the political activities that 501c(4) groups can participate in

It does not seem scandalous at all that when a group that claims a tax exemption that limits the amount of political activity they can be involved in that they might get some scrutiny when they explicitly advertise their political activity in the very name of their organization.

[spanone]

9. this has the stench of a set up all over it....

[Chathamization]

12. Yes!

The report specifically says that the investigation was initiated because of members of congress, and that they didn't look into the treatment of other groups. That's the scandal.

[jazzimov]

16. NO, but maybe - allow me to explain....

First of all, this was done without knowledge of the WH, or even of the guys who report to the WH. So, although the POTUS is ultimately responsible for the people underneath him, he trusts the people who report to him. If they don't know about something, they can't report it. But, technically, they SHOULD know because it's their job to know, which means they SHOULD be able to report it to the POTUS. The POTUS is only human, after all, and he has to be able to delegate duties. The people that he delegates these duties to he trusts to do their job - which means that if anyone screws up beneath them, ultimately it means that the POTUS screwed up for trusting them in the first place.

Remembering that "nobody is perfect", the POTUS has to evaluate the entire body of work of his underlings - not just individual lacks of judgement.

In the case of the IRS, they were instructed to search - not for political philosophies such as "progressive vs conservative" - but for keywords, regardless of party affiliation. Many of these keywords were associated with "anti-tax" groups that had publicly advocated "not paying taxes".

Considering the huge influx of groups requesting tax exempt status following the SCOTUS decision of Citizen's United, as a front line worker I can imagine that I would have appreciated any way to focus and/or narrow down my investigations.

Personally, since this tax exempt status was SUPPOSED to be limited to groups with some sort of "Social Impact", they were obviously taking advantage of a loophole to gain tax-exempt status.

Although I find the claims of these groups despicable, they were technically "legal". By the same token, I think that the actions of the IRS were technically "legal".

Although there is plenty of reason for BOTH sides to cry "foul" - I don't think anything illegal was done.

[dogknob]

30. "The other side of the aisle" does not own duh TeeVee. There will be no apology. n/t

[Politicalboi]

31. The Teabaggers are a terrorist group IMO

They talk of blood in the streets and revolutions. They NEED to be looked at more, not less.