No, IRS Targeting Was Not “Bipartisan”
Treasury IG: Liberal groups weren’t targeted by IRS like Tea Party:
Liberal groups seeking tax-exempt status faced less IRS scrutiny than Tea Party groups, according to the Treasury inspector general.
Russell George, Treasury’s inspector general for tax administration, told Rep. Sandy Levin (D-Mich.) in a letter dated Wednesday that the IRS did not use inappropriate criteria to scrutinize groups with “progressives” in their name seeking tax-exempt status.
“Our audit did not find evidence that the IRS used the ‘progressives’ identifier as selection criteria for potential political cases between May 2010 and May 2012,” [Treasury Inspector General for Tax Adminstration Russell] George wrote in the letter obtained by The Hill.
The inspector general also stressed that 100 percent of the groups with “Tea Party,” “patriots” and “9/12” in their name were flagged for extra attention.
“While we have multiple sources of information corroborating the use of Tea Party and other related criteria we described in our report, including employee interviews, e-mails and other documents, we found no indication in any of these other materials that ‘progressives’ was a term used to refer cases for scrutiny for political campaign intervention,” George wrote to Levin, the top Democrat on the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee. …
George’s letter says that the “progressive” identifier on BOLO lists was not in a section used for selecting potential political cases, and that the IRS had developed inappropriate criteria to flag Tea Party applicants as potentially political.
Ok, fair enough.
So are we back to deciding the IRS was wrong and dis rimantory or are we still defending what happened?
I still don’t think this is a White House scandal but there is no way this was a few rogue employees doing this on their own. This was a management level decision.
They didn’t find evidence because they were told not to:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/06/26/issa-directed-treasury-inspector-general-to-ignore-irs-treatment-of-liberal-groups/
Garance Frank Ruta takes a look at the Inspector General and finds that he is problematical:
The article goes on to point out that he declined to answer questions about whether progressive groups were targeted. I don’t think that this guy is quite the impartial arbiter Doug makes him out to be.
@stonetools:
The post isn’t Doug’s, it’s Dodd’s.
@Timothy Watson:
So why didn’t a progressive Rep request that the Treasury Inspector General investigate unfairly targeted progressive groups like Issa did with the “Teabaggers”?
When will progressives provide a list of unfairly targeted progressive groups?
So now the left tack to take is to complain about the IG rather than the fact that conservative groups were being targeted.
Why can’t liberals just admit this is wrong and horrible and people need to be fired?
So, now the corollary to “both sides do it” which is “both sides are subject to the same treatment” just doesn’t apply? Well then, okay.
Personally, I have no problem with the IRS reviewing the 501(c)(4) tax-exempt status of NPO’s even if the IRS official who ordered the reviews was a Republican.
Okay, go ahead, impeach the president.
Well, since Issa decided to politicize the investigation and only asked the Treasury IG to look at conservative groups, there’s no evidence for conservative groups being targeted more than liberal groups, is there?
Now, if Issa only had asked the IG to look at liberal groups too and the result would have shown a disproportional targeting of conservative groups…
Also, hasn’t Issa moved on, or rather back, to BENGHAZI!!!! ?
John Boehner was quoted as saying someone needs to go to jail for the IRS stuff. Maybe it’ll be the IG?
@rudderpedals:
Speaking of ‘someone needs to go to jail’ ….
in 1993, John Boehner was seen, on the floor of The House, distributing Tobacco Lobby checks to his Republican colleagues.
@PJ:
Check his Twitter feed, He’s back.
@al-Ameda:
IRS inspector general: No, liberal groups weren’t “targeted” the way tea-party groups were
@stonetools:
Sorry Dodd. Stand corrected. :-(.
@Paul L.:
So, more lying from him.
He directs the IG to only looking at conservative groups and now he’s arguing that only conservatives groups were targeted. That man doesn’t have one ounce of honesty.
@Just Me:
This was wrong. I think many of us have been saying this from the beginning. As it was mismanagement.
However “horrible?” I’m sorry but that makes a mountain out of a mole hill. Again, even the TIGTA report (the one written/approved by the IG in question) demonstrates that 81% of the groups caught by the Tea Party Bolo list were *correctly* flagged for review. And again, all of them could continue to operate as 501(c)(4) during the entire review process.
Where the true wrongless lies — and the horror — is what happened to ALL groups who were flagged for secondary review. The rediculous review cycles, etc. Further the wrongness lies in that no one in the IRS seemed capable of coming up with a clear explanation of what constituted permissible political activity for a 501(c)(4). See sections II and III of the report.
But the attempt to focus on a partisan witchhunt — see Issa’s committee — has completely ignored the real issues with the system to focus on the BOLO list and the fool’s quest of linking it to a larger White House scandal. And frankly all of the conservative media base seem interested in only in propping up Issa’s quest.
The real problems here have to do with (a) the 501(c)(4) form itself AND (b) the IRS’s lack of internal oversight of it’s own managerial processes (which led to it taking more than a year to even get draft review criteria for the specialist reviews).
Sure it was not. There are more Conservative Political groups, and these groups have more money. There is no Liberal equivalent to Crossroads GPS and Tea Party Express. Priorities USA, the largest Liberal SuperPAC spent something like of a third of what Crossroads GPS spent.
@Paul L.:
There have been multiple reports of progressive groups that have been subjected to the same specialist review treatment as conservative groups. Further there was a recent tax specialist report that demonstrates that at least 1/3 of recently approved 501(c)(3)/(4) groups who went through specialist review were *not conservative.*
Apparently you continue to ignore every time I post that information in response to your requests.
However, while groups are under review, their names are not publicly revealed. That is a system protection. Further, we do not have a breakdown of the makeup of all the group who applied for 501(c)(3)/(4) status during that period. Without that data we cannot actually ascertain whether that 1/3 breakdown is proof that a significant number of liberal groups were given less scruitny or if the ratios are in keeping with the total breakdown of applications.
We do know from the TIGTA report that the IG found that the IRS’s rate for failing to properly identify cases for specialist review was under 14%. However, we have no information about what the make-up of that 14% is.
@al-Ameda:
Currency is bulky and inconvenient. Never let it be said that the Speaker doesn’t pay his debts.
@Just Me: So are we back to deciding the IRS was wrong and dis rimantory or are we still defending what happened?
The current official talking points seem to be “it never happened, and they deserved it anyway.”
If that seems contradictory to you, welcome to the club.
@Paul L.:
I guess we agree, I said:
Conservatives are so fond of the “both sides do it” meme, especially when the their side does it 95% of the time and liberals do it 5% of the time, so I thought it interesting that conservatives are running away from that meme this time, why?
Also, why are conservatives critical of an Republican IRS official who correctly ordered the review of the 501(c)(4) status of purportedly non-profit conservative and progressive organizations?
@Jenos Idanian #13:
The reality is that a Republican IRS official ordered a review of the 501(c)(4) status of purportedly non-profit conservative AND progressive organizations – not just tea party organizations.
I can see why that bothers you.
@rudderpedals:
Ser John Boehner, knight of House Lannister:-).
So 6 of 20 liberal groups were reviewed-so about 30%.
100% of conservative groups were reviewed.
There is still a problem here.
The IRS ethics are broken and liberals apparently don’t want to fix it because they seem to think 30% to 100% is fine and dandy.
@Just Me:
The primary problem here is that Darrell Issa has completely politicized the investigation to serve his ‘get Obama at any cost’ objective.
The 2nd problem is that conservatives are disappointed that facts indicate that progressive groups were reviewed, removing the exclusivity claims of conservatives.
The 3rd problem here is that a Republican IRS official ordered the reviews, not the White House and not a liberal.
The 4th problem here is … see the primary problem … it’s hard to get anything done – like official reprimand or firing of that official, when Issa has created a sideshow like this.
@Just Me:
Because it is not. What is wrong and horrible is that plainly political groups from both sides are getting tax exempt status.
Oh…. one more thing, how many of these tea party groups were denied for partisan reasons? Until you can answer that question, stop whining.
@OzarkHillbilly:
I trust you and other progressives will do something about it by pushing the Center for America Progress, Moveon.org, Media Matters, Netroots Nation and Organizing for America to give up their 501(c)3 status.
If they went after both sides I’d say that is bi-partisan! Just because Darrell Issa and others don’t see it that way doesn’t make it any less true!
@Paul L.:
In a related matter: How many conservative organizations lost (or were denied) 501(c)(3) or 501(c)(4) status as a result of the IRS (Republican official ordered) review of their tax exempt eligibility/status?
@al-Ameda: none. One group got turned down and it was a Progressive group. It’s just that we’re not whiners and crybabies like right wingers.
@al-Ameda:
That’s like saying cops pulling over a disproportionate number of AAs for driving while black is okay because he pulled some white people over too.
30% of applicants seems reasonable but 100% does not when the other side were on flagged thirty percent of the time.
You are essentially giving the IRS a free pass because there were 6 progressive groups flagged compare to 100% of almost 300 conservative groups.
Sorry but this smells.
And if your issue is with how Issa is handling this-then advocate for a special prosecutor. There is for in the IRS and somebody has to deal with it. Obama is t but congress has oversight responsibility and I would like them to exercise their oversight.
@Jenos Idanian #13:
That reminds me of the Clinton-era staple: it didn’t happen, it happened but we didn’t do it, we were right to do it, and we’ve apologized for it already so why can’t we move past this?
@Just Me:
A special prosecutor is need to fire an IRS official who ordered this?
Doesn’t matter. It’s over except in the GOP media bubble. Snowden killed the momentum and Issa can’t tie it to anyone but a Republican appointee. The country moved on two weeks ago.
@Just Me:
Where are you pulling those numbers from?
@Paul L.:
Couple points. First, most, if not all of these organizations, applied for status (and were approved) prior to 2010. So trying to lop “why did they pass” in with the post 2010 ones is faulty logic.
Next, if your going to try and make a point, get the facts right.
MoveOn.org, Netroots Nation, and Organizing for America are 501(c)(4)’s.
MediaMatters.org and CAP are both 501(c)(3).
Again, I have little issue with 501(c)(3) provided they continue to do “educational work.” The education work is allowed to have a political bias (as is also the case with Heritage and other conservative 501(c)(3) orgs). But they are not allowed to specifically lobby or directly politically support candidates.
501(c)(4)’s are an entirely different beast. And, again, I think the entire 501(c)(4) form needs to go away. If a group wants to engage in any political work, it should register as a 527. But again, that means that the lose the one key advantage that the 501(c)(4) form allows: anonymous donors.
Finally, we have no way of knowing what scrutiny those organizations were put under, because that information (for any organiations – conservative, political, or neutral) is not typically released with the full applications.
@Just Me:
AGAIN WHERE IS THIS 30% NUMBER COMING FROM? Provide a link or stop citing it as fact, because to my knowledge there’s been no basis for finding that number in anything released so far.
@michael reynolds:
Pretty much….
Indeed, my reaction to seeing this was, “Still crying over the IRS, huh?”
@Matt Bernius:
Ok, answered my own question. These number come from a new TIGTA letter released yesterday. Huff Post was the only site I could find with copy of the source letter:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/27/irs-2012-election_n_3510455.html
One thing immediately jumps out:
This confirms a major suspicion, that the office was hit by a significant uptick in conservative organizations applying for status. Liberal applications account for 6% of the total number of “applications” for that period.
On other point… the numbers given were only for groups that EXPLICITLY had “progressive” in their names.
@Matt Bernius:
Wrong they have “sister” organizations
See the American Progress Action Fund/Center for American Progress Action Fund
and
“Media Matters Action Network,” Media Matters’ Activist 501(c)4 “Educational or Social Charity,” Shits the Bed
Media Matters: We’re not defending letting the DOJ sift through reporters’ phone records, but Media Matters is
Inspector General’s Letter Denying Progressives Were Targeted
6/20 *100 = 30
@Paul L.:
I know they both have sister organzations — each of which has different names and serves different funtions. If you’re going to talk about the sister orgs, at least actually take the time to use the proper names: Media Matters Action Network and Center for American Progress Action Fund. This is the same strategy as Heritage and other conservative groups do.
However, you still fail to grasp that those sister organizations were awarded their 501(c)(4) status prior to the entire current scandal period (2010-2012) as was the case with Heritage’s 501(c)(4).
Either way, I still don’t get your point. I’m not sure how many times I can write the issue is with the 501(c)(4) form, not the organizations applying for it. In my opinion, they should all be forced to be 527’s — which are still tax exempt organizations.
As I pointed out above, there is a bit of playing loose with the facts in the Examiner story. These were not *all* the progressive groups, but the groups that explicitly had “progressive” in their name.
You also are dodging the fact that according to the same letter, “progressive” used to be used in the same way (most likely during an big influx of progressive applications) and that there was a sudden and significant influx of tea party applications.
As I’ve written in the past, this is exactly what bureaucracies are extremely bad at handling. Thus a clumsy solution was put in place and made worse by bad management (which, according the the TIGTA audit, didn’t even know that the clumsy solution had been put in place).
That’s the big issue here, and the IG confirmed this in the initial report — this was bad management dealing with an IRS form (501(c)(4) which is all but impossible to effectively define for quick processing of applications).
I’ll post more, in an article, when I finally get to read the actual IG letter to Levin.
@Just Me:
Because it wasn’t wrong and people need to be commended for trying to perform oversight?
Nobody is guaranteed a tax exemption. Frankly, they need to be going over EVERY 501(c) application with a fine-toothed comb. Far too many blatantly political groups, on both sides of the aisle, are misusing the section in a bid to preserve donor anonymity and evade campaign finance laws.
If these groups are social welfare oriented, then I’m Queen Victoria …
@HarvardLaw92:
THIS — in particular 501(c)(4) groups on both sides. Again, one of the most clearly expressed things from the TIGTA Audit and the IRS’s in-audit response, is than no once can systematically define how much politics is too much for a 501(c)(4). All these groups should be made into 527’s and the entire 501(c)(4) form should go away.
In fact, historically Republicans have been against the 501(c)(4) form in general. It’s only in recent years that they’ve decided to stop worrying and love the bomb.
@ Just Me
In fact, quite a few liberals said just that. There is really no way to have a meaningful conversation with you if dishonesty is your baseline position.
@ Just Me
Groovy. Call Issa and tell him to quit playing politics and do his job.
The bush era IG who used highly inflammatory language while deliberately concealing the real facts just helps to reiterate: you cannot trust the Repubs on anything. Everything is political to them and truth does not matter.
Well if all is great and ethical the two IRS employees who are pleading the 5th have nothing to be concerned about and can head right up to Issa’s hearings and testify.
Still can’t believe you guys are fine with this. Just goes to show that liberals don’t care about discrimination that doesn’t gore their ox.
@Just Me:
Well who wouldn’t consider their constitutional rights when it comes to testifying before a hyper-partisan political inquiry run by Darrell Issa (who in 2003 bankrolled the effort to recall the Democratic governor of California.)
@Just Me:
It’s often difficult to see the bigger picture when one has adopted a cheerleader (My team GOOD! Your team BAD!) stance.
@Just Me: you can’t fire civil service employees, they get “reassigned”. and yes, we all pay for them and their lifelong tenure/benefits ever wonder why the DC area has some of the wealthiest suburbs? they aren’t all lobbyists for the NRA.
@bill:
Of course you can fire civil service employees. Also, short of embezzlement and criminal activity, why should ANY worker – public or private sector employee – lose their benefits?
I take it that you have never worked in the private sector? There are many low-productivity, dead weight workers in private sector companies too, it’s just that it’s marginally easier to dismiss them. Ever call your health insurance bureaucracy? Or your bank? Or your phone carrier? Cable carrier?
Yeah, I know that hypothetically we are free to take our service elsewhere, however with government we have no choice, but really … how many of us have the time to constantly change banks, insurance companies, cable companies .. etc …
The private sector is no nirvana.
IG states:
“Our audit did not find evidence that the IRS used the ‘progressives’ identifier as selection criteria for potential political cases between May 2010 and May 2012,”
Excluding the teaparty, patriot,and 9/12 names, there were 202 applicants with names that suggested political intervention.
Is the IG trying to tell us that in those 202 the word “progressive” doesn’t appear in the organizational name?
Or is he being very specific that the word “progressive” does not appear but other names like liberal, obama, democratic, Elizabeth Warren, Immigration Advocates, Pro-choice America, LGBT rights, Occupy, Workers United, Ohioians for Democratic Reform, might be among the 202 “other” organizations.
@Bob @ Youngstown: It looks like he’s being very specific as if specifying a search argument of “progressives” against a pool of entity names, doesn’t it?
Lets review:
298 applications screened by IRS as potential political cases by organization name
72 with tea party in name
11 with 9/12 in name
13 with patriot in name
202 with some other name
Where did you come up with “almost 300 conservative groups”?