Maybe the IRS WASN’T Wrong About the Tea Party Groups

[riqster]

http://bluntandcranky.wordpress.com/2013/05/29/maybe-the-irs-wasnt-wrong-about-the-tea-party-groups/

Turns out there were good reasons to target them. More at the link.

[dkf]

1. Maybe stereotypes actually work...doesn't mean you can or should use then.

We don't target based on ideology because it is certain actions that are the problem.

[riqster]

4. Agreed in principle

However, lots of people were suspicious of these groups at the time, and not just because of their names. No, it was because they seemed like political groups that wanted to operate in the shadows.

[dkf]

9. The IRS said they needed to target based on activity, not names.

The odd thing is everything else gets rubber stamped? That seems irresponsible, no?

They should have had an initial check list which was screened for activity. Their short cut is discriminatory and that isn't something we can tolerate if we believe in equal treatment.

[riqster]

18. Names can indicate activity

If I call my group "The Radical Centrist Party", it gives the impression of a political focus. I would say that it's reasonable to ask some questions to make sure it's really, say, a book-discussion group.

And I am not sure about the statement about everything else getting rubber stamped. It would be good to get something quantified on that.

[dkf]

21. But that wasn't the criteria, to look for all names that indicate political activity.

Instead they explicitly picked one side, tea party and patriot and 9/12. If you saw cars speeding and picked just the ones being driven by African Americans you are going to be in trouble. It has to be random.

[riqster]

22. This decision was not made in a vacuum

If the cops randomly decided to pull in old, fat, balding white guys and I were caught in that net, I'd have grounds for complaint.

But if a large number of old, fat, balding white guys have been on a crime spree, then it is not random.

[dkf]

23. Funny how no one is owning up to it. Maybe it was done in a vacuum...

[riqster]

36. No, there have already been some heads rolling

...and explanations provided in a preliminary report.

[hughee99]

38. Exactly, like if a number of people from the middle east hijacked jets

and flew them into buildings, it's okay to specifically target those who appear from the middle east during pre-flight screenings. If most of the people entering the country illegally in Arizona (for example) happen to be Hispanic, then it's okay for the police to stop only Hispanic people to check for this, right?

[riqster]

41. I'd say you're talking more general

And I am talking specific. If the IRS were always targeting these groups, it would be akin to the anti-Moslem hysteria. But if it related to a specific scenario and was targeted specifically ( like my example), that is another matter.

[hughee99]

42. Your example seems pretty general to me.

"If the cops randomly decided to pull in old, fat, balding white guys and I were caught in that net, I'd have grounds for complaint.
But if a large number of old, fat, balding white guys have been on a crime spree, then it is not random. "

But if I suggested the TSA start targeting "middle eastern looking" men from 16-60 years old, does that really make it any better?

[riqster]

46. Let me be more precise

The Old Fat Balding White Guy Posse has been on a crime spree in the Midwest, and the cops are looking for them. Let's say that I am observed to be at the scene of one of their crimes, and as someone who pretty clearly matches that physical description, I am placed under investigation.

So we have a description plus other factors that would cast suspicion upon me: not just the physical characteristics.

If the cops were to summarily detain all OFBWGs nationwide just for being OFBWGs, that would be like the scenario you describe.

The case in question is similar: not only did these groups have similar identifying characteristics, but they are engaging in actions that could be seen as potentially questionable by the relevant authorities. So, just like the cops in my hypothetical case, the authorities start with what they know (description) and then proceed based in the evidence gathered.

[hughee99]

47. Now you're talking about pulling over people who match the specific description

of a suspect/suspects in an actual crime or crime spree. That's nothing like what the IRS is doing which is deciding that people/groups "of a certain description" COULD be committing a crime and then investigating groups that match that description. What the IRS is doing is closer to my analogies than yours.

[BlueStreak]

29. And how do you know that?

I have not seen it reported ANYWHERE that the IRS ONLY took "patriot" and "Tea Party" as keywords. I believe this situation is that they scanned for a longer list of keywords, but these were the only two that the right wing manufactured outrage machine wants to talk about.

It is about priorities. It makes no sense to spend the same amount of time looking at

"Central City Food Gleaners for the Homeless"

and

"Patriots who are Fed Up to Here with Presidents that - um - Aren't Like Us"

In 10 minutes, you can easily determine if the first of those looks like its activities will match the title and be done with it.

About a decade ago, I formed a 501(c)(3) for volunteers who give instrumental music instruction to central city kids that are not likely to ever have private teachers. Our group is obviously charitable, with only one position paid. Yet it still took over a year to get our determination letter. What we should be talking about are these fraudulent "social welfare" groups abusing the tax code and wasting the IRS' resources, making it harder for legitimate 501(c)(3)s and 501(c)(4)s to get their determinations.

[TheFutureWillCome]

53. here you go

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/05/irs-tea-party-scandal-congress-nonprofit-obama

If the shoe was on the other foot, would your opinion be the same?

[BlueStreak]

58. My point exactly. From that article:

"Did the IRS deliberately target liberal-sounding groups, too? Not that we know of at this point."

Lerner, in answering the question she DELIBERATELY HAD PLANTED, said that the IRS identified conservative-sounding groups. But nowhere does it say those are the ONLY keywords they filtered for. In fact they gave liberal political groups the same scrutiny, asking the same questions.

[xtraxritical]

26. An audit consists of a predetermined sampling percent, say every tenth record - ten percent.

If the 10% audit finds anomalies the search is narrowed in some fashion to find dependencies. The IRS low level staff used key word searches to narrow the search after anomalies were found.

[dkf]

28. No, the keywords were used for a BOLO list, be on the lookout for.

I haven't seen anything saying they were tagged for anomalies first. Where did you see that?

[xtraxritical]

50. I'm telling you how audits are conducted.

[dkf]

52. This was the processing of applications, not an audit.

[xtraxritical]

59. Technically they "audit" the applications. Leave me alone if you think you know better.

[CincyDem]

6. I don't think it's stereotypes - it's stated goals.

If an organized group took to the national airwaves with a consistent message to do something illegal, why are we surprised when those elected/appointed/hired to uphold those laws pay a little more attention to that group. Isn't that what we expect.

Examples:

If I was on a marathon team of 8 runners who publicly denounced the NYC marathon's policy on runners not taking the subway for part of the race...don't you think the marathon officials might single us out and watch us a little more closely (if they let us run at all).

If there were a group of people with the stated goal of sabotaging the food supplies at major sporting events...don't you think the folks who issue food permits for those events might give us a second or third look before they denied our request.

Most of these groups had the expressed purpose of avoiding taxes...so why be surprised when you go to the group responsible for collecting taxes and ask them for a pass on paying taxes. Sounds like it might warrant a second look.

Just because we knew there was a group likely planning to do something bad with commercial airplane and decided to not lift a finger in precaution...that doesn't mean we should obsolete precautions.

[brooklynite]

10. If the IRS could point to a stated goal, they wouldn't be in trouble...

[dkf]

13. I hate to break it to you but pretty much everyone wants to avoid taxes and its not illegal.

Mortgage deductions, child tax credits, the tax system is rife with these things.

And what bad thing were they planning? Bad as in illegal or bad as in something you don't agree with?

Sounds like you shouldn't consider the IRS as a career, or you will be getting into trouble.

[CincyDem]

17. Thanks for the career advice, I'll take it under advisement. n/t

[riqster]

20. Yes, and if I advertise my intention to break a law, or even bend it

...then I should expect the relevant authorities to take an interest in my activities.

And if I am one of a group of such people acting in such a manner, the same goes.

[Dreamer Tatum]

35. Al Gore was praised for his tax avoidance last year. nt

[gcomeau]

25. Oh come on.

They had a specific obligation to screen groups applying to ensure they were not engaging in primarily political activity and they flagged groups with THE NAME OF A POLITICAL ACTIVISM GROUP IN THEIR OWN NAME for extra scrutiny. That isn't "stereotyping" and more than if they had done it to a group that said "Organization to help elect Democratic politicians" or if the security screeners at the airport pull you aside if you have a sign strapped to your chest that says "Hello, my name is 'terrorist'!"

This entire thing is fucking ridiculous. The only thing they did wrong as far as I'm concerned was apologize for something they should have been doing in the first place.

[noiretextatique]

55. you are correct

if these groups applied as sec 501c3 or sec 504, they cannot engage primarily in political activity...period, paragraph, end of story. and as we all know, the koch brothers and other rw billionaires have been funneling money to these supposed "social welfare" organizations. i agree...no ne should not have apoligized.

[BlueStreak]

60. No, that is not correct.

501(c)(3) is a whole different animal. In that case, you must have a charitable mission, and as such any donations to your cause are fully tax-deductible by the donor.

With 501(c)(4), the statute says you can't have any political activity, but the courts changed that to "primarily" social welfare, and then the IRS further defined that to be at least 50.1% social welfare. In any case, donations aren't tax-deductible, but the big "get" here is that a 501(c)(4) doesn't have to disclose any of its donors. So essentially these 501(C)(4)s became giant money laundering operations that fed money to the conventional PACs (again not tax-deductible), but allowed these uber-rich donors to remain anonymous.

We really need to understand this for what it is -- it is a gross abuse of the statutes by PACs (mostly Republican, but the Dems followed along too). The scandal is in this money laundering by PACs, not in the questionnaire the IRS asked them to fill out.

Here's a tree:


Here's a forest:


See the difference?

[noiretextatique]

61. thanks for the clarification

but your explanation is not substantially different than the post i replied to, i.e., these groups are NOT 501c3s. but the donor list issue is HUGE, hence all the rw posturing.

[BlueStreak]

62. Well, I'm not sure I follow

Last edited Wed May 29, 2013, 06:36 PM - Edit history (1)

501(C)(3) has nothing to do with any of this. That is for charities and educational institutions. None of the political groups, to my knowledge, was brash enough to try to get a 501(C)(3) determination.

They were all 501(C)(4)s. and the reason they wanted to do that was so they could take unlimited donations without disclosing any of the donors. Then they fed this money through to PACs ANONYMOUSLY that used it entirely for political purposes. Along the way, some of them actually tried to appear like there was some social welfare purpose, but that was mostly a sham. None of them should have been given determination letters. These were just money laundering operations.

The scandal is that the IRS didn't apply ENOUGH scrutiny -- not that they did too much.

[noiretextatique]

63. thanks again...i got it this time

[malaise]

2. NYT had a good piece yesterday

The scandal is imploding big time. Looks like some of them lied to the IRS and will be charged as criminals

[riqster]

3. Yep. My blog post linked to it.

Of course, the NYT piece is getting lost in the clamor. Sigh.

[tblue]

30. OH PLEASE MAKE IT SO!!!!!!

You don't get to spit on Congressmen and call the President a Muslim terrorist and expect automatic tax-exempt status.

I knew POTUS jumped the gun when he joined the piling on. I wish he & other Dems would have proceeded with due caution before weighing in as judge and jury. Egad. That just added to the mess.

[malaise]

34. When POTUS gets the last laugh it will be all good

[riqster]

37. Yeah, but it would be a bigger laugh

...if he had held back.

[malaise]

39. I did wonder why he jumped in so early but you know

Dems. After all, they helped to devour ACORN for the ReTHUGs and nearly did the same to Shirley Sherrod.

[riqster]

40. I jumped early too

So I can't be all that critical.

[noiretextatique]

57. how shocking!

another "scandal" that is really not a scandal...at all.

[Blue_Tires]

5. Back in the early hours when this "scandal" FIRST broke,

the first thing I said was the IRS must have been getting close to ripping the cover off something, so the GOP cracked the whip on their puppets in congress...

[malaise]

7. And you were correct

Truth will out

[riqster]

8. You saw more clearly than I did at the time

Bravo!

[brooklynite]

11. Silly me! I thought the IRS was run by the Obama Administration...

[tblue]

31. No. But the IRS was thrown to the wolves

by the administration. Yes it sure was.

[Cosmocat]

12. Of course it was ...

I had no doubt, absolutely none, that they were simply addressing organizations that were abusing non-profit status.

The disappointment is that so many democrats just rolled over on it, which has forever given the republicans the traction to frame this as a vendetta against them.

I like BO a lot, but he folds his cards on too many of these situations, too.

HTF hard is it to simply say, "There are no exceptions to the rule of law. We will evaluate the actions of the IRS, and if they unduly targeted anyone the people responsible will be held responsible."

[Blue_Tires]

19. It has to be said more than a few DUers "rolled over on it," too...

[tblue]

32. Yeah. But we are not POTUS.

Some follow his lead. And some just bought the meme. Oy. If only there had been a moment's pause before shooting the IRS in the head. I hope the IRS is vindicated and these sham 'welfare orgs' are taxed as they should be.

[noiretextatique]

56. exactly

especially when it is an open secret that the koch brothers and others have been funding these groups. there was nothing to apologize about.

[Takket]

14. ?

So how come if this is true it isn't being asked about in congressional hearings? Everyone from the president on down has said this is wrong and will be dealt with. the director was blown out. the IRS has basically just admitted what they did was wrong.

[riqster]

16. The IRS cannot make statements about in-process investigations

So they pretty much had to make a very narrowly crafted statement about a specific method of searching.

Note that they did NOT say anything in that initial statement about what they found.

[siligut]

15. The GOP media machine did their best and some were swayed

The Teabaggers did it wrong when filing, they got flagged, then the gnashing of the teeth and tearing out of the hair started, intending to distract and dissuade the IRS from their job.

[Nimajneb Nilknarf]

24. The whole 501(c)(4) exemption seems problemmatic at its core. Zealots of all stripes have always

justified their political agendas as consistent with or necessary to the promotion of social welfare.

Even if they aren't consciously cheating the system by claiming tax-exempt status, this provision in the tax system attracts people who are able to convince themselves that what they want is in everyone's best interests.

"The National Federal of Associations is a nonprofit organization established to support the Prematurely Balding Senate Caucus in achieving enactment of the national agenda Americans voted for on Election Day. NFA will advocate for these policies throughout the country and will mobilize citizens of all parties and diverse points of view to speak out for speedy passage and effective implementation of this program, including clean water, equality for all and fixing potholes. In addition, NFA will encourage the formation of chapters that will be dedicated at the grassroots level to this program, but also committed to identifying and working progressive change on a range of issues at the state and local level. In carrying its work, NFA will operate as a "social welfare" organization within the meaning of section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code. So send us money."

That all sounds noble, albeit vague, so people send them money but really don't have any idea what happens to it. Of course much of it ends up being paid to lobbyists to twist arms in Congress and state legislatures, so the whole thing is political at its roots. The money that doesn't go toward lobbying pays the staff of the organization. So they all profit even though the organization itself shows a flat bottom line.

[Kingofalldems]

27. Oops.

Tea Party fans not liking this one.

[Whisp]

33. of course they weren't!

the 'targeting' is a bullshit story.

and the media is shoveling shoveling shoveling.

what a disgrace.

but seeing as everyone is fearful of the IRS this makes good press for the baggers and friends. Stupid!

[thesquanderer]

43. Your sig quote is a fun line, but... Jefferson?? (n/t)

[Nimajneb Nilknarf]

45. Thanks for pointing out the erroneous attribution, thesquanderer.

[riqster]

48. D'oh! That has been there for years, and you're the first one who caught my error.

Embarrassing. Thanks, I have fixed my fucked-up attribution.

[L0oniX]

44. Gee ...anti tax groups get targeted by IRS. They made it easy to be targeted....

just like a cop busting a house that has a "crack for sale" sign out the front.

[librechik]

49. yup--I was surprised and shocked when Obama came out all apologetic& blaming the IRS

fuck--another Sheila Sherrod kneejerk gaffe!

silly me. Should have expected that.

[John1956PA]

51. On May 15, I posted, "The IRS and the administration have overdone the apologies to the Tea Party"

My post appears at http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2850170 .

[noiretextatique]

54. no maybe about it: the IRS was not wrong

there was/is no scandal.