Posted by AzBlueMeanie:
It appears the worm has turned on the conservative media entertainment complex cult's IRS "scandal" conspiracy theory. Upon a deeper dive into the facts by responsible media over the hysteria and persecution complex scandal mongering of wingnuttia, a defense of the IRS is emerging.
The New York Times reported yesterday Groups Targeted by I.R.S. Tested Rules on Politics:
Representatives of [Tea Party] organizations have cried foul in recent weeks about their treatment by the I.R.S., saying they were among dozens of conservative groups unfairly targeted by the agency, harassed with inappropriate questionnaires and put off for months or years as the agency delayed decisions on their applications.
But a close examination of these groups and others reveals an array of election activities that tax experts and former I.R.S. officials said would provide a legitimate basis for flagging them for closer review.
“Money is not the only thing that matters,” said Donald B. Tobin, a former lawyer with the Justice Department’s tax division who is a law professor at Ohio State University. “While some of the I.R.S. questions may have been overbroad, you can look at some of these groups and understand why these questions were being asked.”
The I.R.S. is already separately reviewing roughly 300 tax-exempt groups that may have engaged in improper campaign activity in past years, according to agency planning documents. Some election lawyers said they believed a wave of lawsuits against the I.R.S. and intensifying Congressional criticism of its handling of applications were intended in part to derail those audits, giving political nonprofit organizations a freer hand during the 2014 campaign.
After the tax agency was denounced in recent weeks by President Obama, lawmakers and critics for what they described as improper scrutiny of at least 100 groups seeking I.R.S. recognition, The New York Times examined more than a dozen of the organizations, most of them organized as 501(c)(4) “social welfare” groups under the tax code, or in some cases as 501(c)(3) charities. None ran major election advertising campaigns, according to the Campaign Media Analysis Group, the main activity of a small number of big-spending tax-exempt groups that emerged as major players in the 2010 and 2012 elections.
But some organized volunteers, distributed pamphlets and held rallies leading up to the 2010 elections or the 2012 presidential election, as conservatives fought to turn out Mr. Obama.
A report issued this month by the Treasury Department’s inspector general, J. Russell George, found that inappropriate criteria, including groups’ policy positions, were used to flag some cases and that specialists in the I.R.S. office in Cincinnati, which reviews all tax-exemption requests, sometimes asked questions that were irrelevant to the application process.
And agency officials have acknowledged that specialists inappropriately used keywords like “Tea Party” and “Patriots” in searching through applications.
But some former I.R.S. officials disputed several of Mr. George’s conclusions, including his assertion that it was inappropriate to ask groups about their donors, or whether their leaders had plans to run for public office. While unusual, the former officials said, such questions are not prohibited if relevant to an application under consideration.
“The I.G. was as careless with terminology as the Cincinnati office was,” said Marcus S. Owens, who headed the I.R.S.’s exempt organizations division until 2000. “Half of those questions have been found to be germane in court decisions.”
I.R.S. agents are obligated to determine whether a 501(c)(4) group is primarily promoting “social welfare.” While such groups are permitted some election involvement, it cannot be an organization’s primary activity. That judgment does not hinge strictly on the proportion of funds a group spends on campaign ads, but on an amorphous mix of facts and circumstances.
“If you have a thousand volunteer hours and only spend a dollar, but those volunteers are to help a particular candidate, that’s a problem,” Mr. Tobin said.
Agents may examine when and for how long a group advocates policy positions, in part to see whether those positions are associated with a specific candidate, which can be relevant to the group’s tax status, tax lawyers and former I.R.S. officials said.
Agents may look at what a group publishes in print or on a Web site, whether it provides funds to other organizations involved in elections or whether a group’s officers are also employed by political parties. They may also consider other public information, former officials and tax experts said, though they are required to ask the organization to provide those materials or comment on them before the information can be included in an application review.
“My experience has been that the agents immediately start Googling to see what the organization is doing outside of the application,” said Kevin J. Shortill, a former tax law specialist in the I.R.S.’s exempt organization division. “And that explains why you get these requests for information like, ‘Please print out your Web site and send it in.’ ”
* * *
At least some of the conservative groups that are complaining about I.R.S. treatment were clearly involved in election activities on behalf of Republicans or against Democrats. When CVFC, the veterans’ group, first applied for I.R.S. recognition in early 2010, it stated that it did not plan to spend any money on politics. The group, whose full name in its application was CVFC 501(c)(4), listed an address shared with a political organization called Combat Veterans for Congress PAC. CVFC told the I.R.S. that it planned to e-mail veterans about ways in which they “may engage in government” and provide “social welfare programs to assist combat veterans to get involved in government.”
* * *
Some groups appeared to be confused or misinformed about the I.R.S. rules applying to their activity.
Steve Benen points out in this post Watching a scandal slowly 'metastasize' that other responsible media organizations have taken a deeper dive into the facts and found that this IRS "scandal" conspiracy theory really was the result of lower level IRS employees being overwhelmed by a flood of 501(c)(4) applications:
Over the last week or so, we've seen several detailed reports -- from the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, and the New York Times, among others -- each of which say roughly the same thing: officials with little direction or legal clarity struggled to implement vague guidelines.
And barring additional information, that's pretty much the end of the story as it relates to the White House. For all the talk on the right about President Obama's possible involvement in the matter, there's just nothing to even hint in that direction.
The result, Jon Chait argues, is a "metastasizing" controversy, created by desperate conservatives.
* * *
But I remain fascinated by the ever-changing trajectory of the allegations, which have quickly become incoherent.
Phase One: Maybe the Obama White House gave orders to the IRS!
Phase Two: We demand to know why the Obama White House didn't give orders to the IRS!
Phase Three: The president must have known what was going on at the IRS!
Phase Four: We demand to know why the president didn't know what was going on at the IRS!
Phase Five: Never mind all that other stuff, maybe the president ordered IRS audits on Republicans!
Look, this is getting a little silly. If Republicans want the American mainstream to see this as a legitimate "scandal," they're going to have to get their story straight. Because at this point, listening to the White House's GOP critics get increasingly confused about details they should understand by now is getting a little tiresome.
Perhaps the best commentary on the IRS "scandal" conspiracy theory is the satirical treatment by Stephen Colbert last week on The Colbert Report in a bit called the Mazda Scandal Booth. Colbert has his own 501(c)(4). “So you can form a 501 (c) (4) without asking to form one?” he asks. Yes indeed. “So these tea party, anti-big government organizations didn’t have to ask big government for permission, but they did anyway?” he asks. Yes they did. “What a bunch of pussies,” Colbert replies mockingly.
Part 1
The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Indecision Political Humor,Video Archive
Part 2
The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Indecision Political Humor,Video Archive
Recent Comments