Lol. Ok, I’ll take my lumps for not really caring about whether MoveOn qualified or not, and I should have just left them out.
However, my actual point still stands: the media has not reported that similar left leaning organisations were scrutinized using the same methods that right leaning organisations had to deal with.
I think this is probably the fairest assessment of the whole deal at this point.
Your actual point is also wrong. To the extent that more right-leaning organizations were being scrutinized, well, there were a lot more of them filing at the time.
Your link took me to this quote: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-15/irs-sent-same-letter-to-democrats-that-fed-tea-party-row.html
It will be interesting to see the “final” numbers, if they exist. I would love to see some sort of breakdown of # of applications, % approved, % under heavier scrutiny, % rejected - broken down by left vs right (when possible).
Which ones disbanded because of this scrutiny?
Two, supposedly(they weren’t identified, so it can’t be checked out yet).
The problem with that is that figuring out the political affiliation of these groups is going to be a matter of guesswork.
Dumb question but how does “gave up” equal “disband”? Because it seems to me that absent the IRS approval, the group is certainly free to continue to operate, just not to claim tax-exempt status. Here is another quote from that article.
Some of us folks tend to think that the real issue is transparency, that some people want to support political positions with oodles of money but don’t want their fingerprints on it. Which is precisely what a “social welfare” org can do for you, you don’t have to reveal a thing.
So, suppose a couple of guys…lets call them the Cock Brothers, just to make something up…suppose they are right wingers who want to leverage their money into political power. But are a bit wary about it. What better venue for them than to donate to outfits who are all about the social welfare and educating about the Constitution! And if certain political figures and candidates are prominent at their gatherings, well, that’s not politics, that’s just political guys who are also deeply concerned about social welfare. Uh huh. Pull the left one, its got bells, pull the middle one requires dinner and a show.
And if they fund a group and it goes outside the lines, and gets caught? So what, just start another one.
The rich man has the same rights as I, that principle is secure with me. And he is entitled to buy all the loud shiny crap he wants, no problem. But he is not entitled to buy more political power. Free speech is totally protected, anonymous free speech? Not so much.
How did they manage to find so many to hire in Cincinnati? 
Continuing to weaken the agency, making it increasingly unable to catch tax cheats, is indeed the obvious underlying motivation of the scandalmongers. They’d really like to be less bothered about paying their fair share. It isn’t about making the IRS learn, whatever the hell you mean by that; it’s about making them impotent.
IT’s like motivating your horse to win a race by breaking it’s legs on at a time until it wins, dammit!
This is what I want to see–I can see a justification for the keyword-based scrutiny if they (as seems likely) received a sudden new influx of 501(c) applications all from a particular segment of the population.
Especially if they were generally from a movement that is A) mostly political, and thus might have a harder time qualifying for 501(c)4 and B) mostly anti-tax.
I still say that an organization should be able to assert that it qualifies for a particular status, like the 501c4, then be subject to prosecution by the AG if they violate the terms of that permit. Why bother to try to screen them? Let them all have it, then put the burden on the Justice Department to enforce the terms of their status.
this suggestion goes to the heart of so many people’s quarrel with the IRS that it is given the power to declare you guilty of tax evasion and you have to prove you aren’t…and you have no recourse in Federal Court. When you couple this (what some folks say is an abuse of power) with the completely wacky multi-interpretations of tax codes you can get by asking the same question of more than one IRS person, you begin to see that involving the Justice Department to enforce tax laws is a much better decision than having the IRS decide who gets a permit and who doesn’t.
In this issue, too, there is so much subjectivity about what activities are permitted and which frowned upon, that politics are bound to enter into the matter, with all sorts of conflicting examples of who did what and who got caught.
Wanta see something interesting? Remember Dick Armey’s Tea Party Express. Totally non-political social welfare group, first to let us know that the Tea Party was solidly behind Verizon/Comcast in their recent regulatory struggle. I mean, who doesn’t love the cable company, amirite?
Guess who had a 501(C)4 exemption? Anyone wanna tell me why?
http://www.stateteapartyexpress.org/phone-from-home
An excerpt from their phoning for support script.
Apolitical social welfare, my ass!
The IRS regulations create a giant loophole such that political activism = social welfare. It’s a self-contradicting regulation. And it’s that way by design.
In Monday’s Colbert Report, Trevor Potter explained that IRS approval is not actually necessary to form a 501(c)(4) and claim tax-exempt status. There is no law that requires a (c)(4) to register. So even if their registrations were denied, I’m now having a tough time seeing what they lost.
I saw that as well. So I’m still not clear whether any groups that had difficulty getting IRS approval actually disbanded, and why.
I suppose the IRS could assess a penalty after the fact if it found a political advocacy group which did not file did not meet the requirements for ©(4) status - too overtly political, or whatever.