Same difference. Some groups had to meet a higher burden than others for reasons of ideology.
These are empty buzzwords carelessly and meaninglessly applied. (Who in the world is “pro-tax,” by the way?) And even if they’re “anti-government” and “anti-tax,” what does that have to do with their tax exempt status?
Per the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, the I.R.S. used “inappropriate criteria to identify organizations applying for tax-exempt status to review for indications of significant political campaign intervention. Although the IRS has taken some action, it will need to do more so that the public has reasonable assurance that applications are processed without unreasonable delay in a fair and impartial manner in the future,”
Unreasonable delays
There were excessive and unreasonable delays in processing applications. “[N}o work was completed on the majority of these applications for 13 months.” This despite that fact that none of these applications were ultimately denied.
160 of 296 applications reviewed were left pending from 206 to 1,138 calendar days (more than 3 years). Some applications were approved mere weeks after the 2012 elections.
More than 20 months after the unreasonable targeting of these groups was identified (early in calendar year 2010) processing of these applications began in earnest.
Unnecessary, burdensome questions
Applicants were asked to respond to queries that the TIGTA considered to be “unnecessary, burdensome questions” including names of past and future donors. Those lists of donor names were later destroyed.
So the harm is in leaving a group in a state of uncertainty for an unreasonable period of time. Further, using unreasonable criteria to screen applicants for additional scrutiny presents the appearance of bias in an agency with extraordinary power.
The notion of postulating tax fraud without evidence and using it to justify intrusive government policy closely mirrors what so many people here find objectionable about Republican attitudes toward voter fraud laws.
except there’s nothing intrusive about voter fraud laws.
Agreed. Why should I get upset about being patted down at an airport because my first name is Ali.
I didn’t have to jump through any extra hoops. The hoops were already there it’s just usually they were jumped at random and this time they weren’t done at random.
Big whoop.
Besides if I didn’t have anything to hide, why should I get upset at the search.
There is something intrusive about demanding a person produce ID and its certainly comparable to what the IRS did.
If that is true then the government officials who did that should go to jail.
Do you a more reliable source for this than the famously unreliable Breitbart.
No it’s not. The problem with voter fraud laws is that they are purposefully designed to disenfranchise legal voters, and aren’t really about fraud at all. For example, one reason that Republicans are so eager to make voters show IDs is that there is a good chunk of Democratic voters who do not have IDs. It’s not about fraud, it’s about those voters.
The parallel would be if the IRS was trying to make it impossible for legitimate 501(c) 4s to run, using “tax evasion” as a flimsy excuse for hampering their operations. There is some chance that is what’s happening, but frankly it’s unlikely.
I think racial profiling is a much more apt metaphor. It’s about using a simple heuristic to screen groups. It’s wrong, it’s unjust, and it certainly should be investigated and stopped. But in the end, most racial profiling actually is motivated by (perhaps misguided) attempts to stop crime, not on some big racial conspiracy to bring other races down.
I will just say, after 14 years on this board, the libs are getting a bit nervous. I can read their reactions even through text. First they talk shit and deny, then they over- obfuscate and when CNN reporters rip Carney they stop and think about it.
Brains are exploding on the left.
…as compared to the aneurysms the right has been having over every single issue, real and imagined, for half a decade now?
Forgive us if, when the boy cries wolf, we’re a bit cautious to run up that hill again.
I thought my brain was supposed to have exploded over Benghazi-gate, so how can it be exploding now?
See, you libs wont even address any issues. sven, how do you feel about Holder stealing hundreds of hours of phone calls from american citizens.
you have been in countries like china. North Korea? WTF
How is it intrusive? No personal questions are asked. No affiliations are demanded. It’s a simple validation.
sven, you have talked for years about helping ppl in various countries. I applaud you. you are an angel. but do you realize most of these contracts re NGE’s only support the entity in charge
Perhaps, but it’s like this is more a frustrated reaction to seeing the same movie we saw play out during the Clinton presidency: Come up with enough “scandals”, and one or two of them are bound to gain some traction with a compliant press. Once you sift those out, pound them relentlessly until you get a baseless impeachment charge or a sh!tload of campaign donations from the witless rubes who are glad to have a new fig-leaf to justify what is, at heart, an irrational hatred of any democrat, much less one of darker skin-tone.
Look, the right as it currently stands will never–I repeat, NEVER–accept the legitimacy of a democratic president. I take comfort in the fact that demographics will soon make their antiquated viewpoint politically impotent, but I shake my head at the damage they will do before they shrink to irrelevance.
Frustrated, yes, but hardly nervous. These “scandals” will play out like every other manufactured issue on the right, who will continue with the faux outrage long after the media moves on to the next shiny object.
I don’t know what to make of this. The Breitbart page was playing an audio ad that I couldn’t figure out how to turn off, so I didn’t read much of the article, but here’sProPublica’s take on the matter. No way for me to tell if this was malicious or a fuck-up in providing the already approved applications that ProPublica requested.
Thank you.
<nitpick> At the time this information was released the applications of these conservative groups were still pending. It is precisely because the applications had not yet been approved that release of this information was illegal. </nitpick>
ProPublica had previously requested application information on Tea Party organizations but received a reply that basically the information could not be found. This was a typical way of responding if an approved application could not be found. So presumably someone understood the difference in disclosure rules between approved applications and pending applications. That is, of course, no guarantee against a future error.