This part of the Atlantic article actually made laugh.
Senator Max Baucus: “How dare you investigate those groups that I told you to investigate!”
He asked them to investigate, does that mean he told them to persecute?
I agree it poor judgement and looks really bad. I do think a full investigation is called for.
That said, I doubt it was political in the sense of “I don’t agree with the Tea Party, so I am going to investigate them more.” That would be way out of bounds. What I think happened here was that they knew that Tea Party groups were more likely to violate the tax code (as electioneering certainly isn’t unheard of among them), and it seemed sensible to look for groups that fit a well-known profile.
I actually faced a very similar dilemma the other day. I had a list of 2,500 random US universities, and I had one hour to pare that list down to 1,000 somewhat selective, respectable universities. I needed to weed out the for-profits, the yahoos, and the other groups that obviously didn’t belong among a group of at least mildly prestigious US universities.
I quickly realized it would take me all day to sort through 2,500 names and pass judgement. So the first thing I did was clear some space by weeding out the obvious no-gos. And what did I see? A lot schools with “bible,” “Christian,” and “evangelical” in their names were unaccredited institutions. So I did a big search for these words, and made sure to check each one, keeping the ones that had a good reputation. This cut out a pretty big chunk of the list, making the rest of my task management.
Of course, anyone watching me could easily conclude that I was being horrifically anti-Christian by subjecting Christian universities to more scrutiny. But really, it as just an efficient way of getting through a lot of information.
So-called “Patriot” groups shouldn’t have been targeted, granted.
But if someone’s identifying themselves as “The (something) Party”, shouldn’t they at least be asked if they’re, you know, a political party? Or am I missing something here?
Prosecute, no. Persecute . . . much wider range of fun to be had there! 
There is a possible major silver lining here, and that is focusing attention on the rats nest of laws the Citizens United ruling has brought upon us. People with money and an agenda have more political rights than the rest of us, they can foist their views upon us without telling us who they are.
Who says free speech means anonymous speech? I certainly have a number of unpopular views, less so than they were, true, but still. I have even seen a friends FBI file wherein he thoughtfully highlighted those parts where my name was mentioned. (And misspelled) A chilling moment, but I am not afraid, I am not deterred, and I will not hide behind a shield of anonymity. My name is John Mace, I live in California, and IRS? Do your worst, I double dog dare you!
No, I’m John Mace!
Was it a secret that groups with “Progressive” or “Obama” or “Occupy” in their names were political machines? Because an even-handed IRS could have just added similar search terms for liberal political groups, and President Obama probably wouldn’t have needed to condemn this practice.
But here’s the thing that really kills me about this. Groups on both sides have been abusing the 501(c) exemptions. The IRS needs to investigate it, and put a stop to these abuses. But by attacking only one side – the one that happens to be out of power – it’s probably made it politically impossible for the IRS to investigate any 501(c)s for political affiliation. So now, it’s possible that the IRS won’t investigate anyone, and the abuses will continue. Which sucks.
And you wonder why people don’t know when you’re joking or not…?
I don’t have a problem with the IRS taking a hard look at 501(c)(4)s. But it shouldn’t do that based on their evident party affiliation or the specifics of their political views unless it turns up evidence that warrants doing that. This isn’t that complicated.
We’re talking about a specific type of group here, though. And not that it matters but there were no PACs of any consequence with Occupy in their names.
The part where it’s one sided. The part where the IRS knew it was going on since 2010. The part where the IRS asked for names of anyone connected with the groups. Soooo basically the reasons they apologized in the first place.
I expect an apology from the Justice Department for going after the phone records of AP reporters.
I think the right wing equivalent of this would be giving people whose names are Gonzales and Martinez extra scrutiny with regard to legal status. On practical grounds it makes some sense and may not be (racist/politically motivated), but it was the wrong thing to do in terms of being fair and impartial.
Why would you find it remarkable? IIUC, the need to process a crapload more applications than normal followed closely on the heels of the Citizens United decision. This was an event that had teahadists rubbing their hands and saying “Excellent” in their best Montgomery Burns imitation, and treehuggers mostly wailing and gnashing their teeth (again, IIUC). Why would it be remarkable if it were to transpire that the rightwingers had jumped onto the 501(c)4 trolley in disproportionate numbers?
If the name of your group contains the words “tea party” and you claim your main function is social welfare you better be dispensing darjeeling to the destitute.
I’m missing something here, or maybe I’m not. What actually happened as a result of these investigations? What harm was inflicted? This is not a rhetorical snark question, but straight up, what actually happened?
Perhaps lefties are insensitive to this problem for lack of experience in bureaucratic ankle-biting for partisan reasons. Except for the brief period between roughly 1890 to 2010.
I actually think this is an excellent analogy, and all parties would do well to stop and think about it before they continue goring one another’s oxen. It captures both how I can see where the IRS agents might have been coming from, and how I think it was pretty ill-advised.
Reports coming out that the scrutiny was directed by DC are extra-disturbing.
Two different things are being conflated here – the IRS investigating existing tax-exempt entities, and reviewing new applications for the approval of 501 status. The “scandal” involves only the later.
I have some familiarity with 501 corporations, having been involved in forming a couple. The applicant must submit a Charter or Articles of Incorporation and a set of Bylaws. These documents spell out the mission(s) of the organization in detail along with prospective activities intended to be used to advance the mission(s). Additional documentation may include investment policies to guide the corporation’s finances.
Review by the IRS involves a determination that the mission(s) are lawful tax exempt pursuits, and the systems put in place by the organization are both specific and powerful enough to provide reasonable assurance that the mission(s), and only the mission(s) will be pursued.
It seems not unreasonable that missions like “feed the homeless” or “care for injured animals” and reflected in names like MyTown Feeding the Homelesss, Inc. and Help For Injured Animals, Inc. might raise less concern of possible electioneering than organizations chartered with names identical or very similar to tax protest organizations. And so it seems not unreasonable for new 501 applicants, identified by well known names also used by political and electioneering organizations, to be given enhanced scrutiny to ensure that electioneering was indeed being ruled out.
Until we see the auditors’ report, we really won’t know exactly what was being done though.
ISTM that the law creating of 501(c)(4) added a burden to the IRS that it was not equipped to handle–especially when the number of such organizations increased exponentially. I don’t know how the rules regarding 501(c)(4)'s developed, but I’m going to guess various court cases have led to the “electioneering is not their primary purpose” standard, and the IRS is having trouble developing a more objective standard.
Not that I excuse IRS employees for their choice to simply filter on names for new applicants. I mean, clearly political groups like Crossroads GPS (Rove’s outfit) and Priorities USA (pro-Obama) dwarf any of the penny-ante 501(c)(4)'s that were the target of the IRS search, and the IRS has ignored calls to review their status (I agree with CannyDan this isn’t part of the current scandal, but it shows how the procedures the IRS is following have been in a state of flux). The real problem IMO is a law that forces the I.R.S. to make decisions it is ill-equipped to make.
I’ll add just one more point about how this scandal really hits home for the GOP base. From Josh Marshall at TPM:
Not extra hoops. Hoops that are already there, usually jumped at random. In this case it wasn’t random. Big whoop
Yes, I wrote it that way for a reason. It applies here because we’re talking about groups whose stated purpose have an anti-government, anti-tax theme. They should be looked at closer and if they weren’t doing anything wrong, then they don’t need to worry about it. Next time, don’t start a group who’s anti-government and expect the government to treat you like an animal rescue