It hasn’t ended. It’s gotten worse.
It’s like there’s absolutely no accountability or something.
37 thoughts on “The IRS Targeting”
Comments are closed.
It hasn’t ended. It’s gotten worse.
It’s like there’s absolutely no accountability or something.
Comments are closed.
The Imperial Storm Troopers–oops, I mean “the IRS”–should listen to Baghdad Jim. Such targeting is merely a “right-wing” (i.e., pro-freedom) fantasy. Therefore it does not exist. Therefore they should stop.
As of last week, Ms. Martin’s group had been waiting three years and three months for its 501(c)(4) letter. (Before Mr. Obama was president, the average time was three weeks.) The targeting has had its intended effect: Ms. Martin notes that supporters of her group have asked to be dissociated, for fear of their own IRS audit.
Now comes the fitting end to this spectacle. Late last week Ms. Martin’s name appeared among those scheduled to testify before the House Oversight Committee this Thursday. On Wednesday, she got a call from the supposedly apolitical IRS. Her group’s application for 501(c)(4) status? Suddenly, miraculously approved.
Over three years and testimony in front of a congressional committee in order to get approval? See! The process works!
Before Mr. Obama was president, the average time was three weeks
Before Mr. Obama was president the Citizens United ruling had not been issued, and 501c4s were not allowed to spend anonymous money in election campaigns.
And that is why 100% of the 501c4 groups audited were conservative. Citizen’s United also explains why Ben Carson, his friends, and family were all audited along with many other critics and donors. Citizen’s United must be why Democrat groups like OFA got preferential treatment. It must also be why applications for tax exempt status, you know the uber intrusive ones, were then released to Democrat front groups.
What does Citizen’s United have to do with the persecution of political dissidents?
Anonymous speech is free speech. Why would anyone wish to remain anonymous when we see how the Democrats attack them not only from the bully pulpit but also with government agencies? This is like the Jim Crow days reborn.
It is funny that the party that claims money in politics is a bad thing only goes after other parties spending money while they raise and spend billions. Democrats have out spent and out raised their opposition over the last several presidential cycles yet Democrats never want to rein in their own fund raising and spending.
Ben Carson, his friends, and family were all audited along with many other critics and donors
You want the IRS to exempt administration critics from audits? How would that work, exactly?
What does Citizen’s United have to do with the persecution of political dissidents?
The law says that 501c4 groups can’t be primarily political. The IRS has to determine whether a group meets that standard before it can be given 501c4 status. Making that determination takes time and paperwork. Carrying out the law is not persecution.
[Aside: I just spent the morning filling out audit paperwork for my business insurer. They want to know exactly how much I spent on payroll and subcontractors, and a bunch of other things besides — they ask me these questions every single year. How dare they persecute me this way!]
This is like the Jim Crow days reborn.
Asking political groups to fill out forms to qualify for special tax status is not exactly the same thing as state-sponsored racial terrorism.
Democrats have out spent and out raised their opposition over the last several presidential cycles
And the identities of their >$200 donors are public information. The law says you can 1) spend all you want on elections or 2) keep large donations anonymous. You can’t do both.
I wouldn’t say that the current state of law is ideal, but it is the law, and the IRS is stuck trying to enforce it. Imagine the cries of tyranny that would go up if Obama told the IRS to ignore the law and just approve every 501c4 application that came in….
And the identities of their >$200 donors are public information.
But not the identities of their small donors who may be large donors breaking their donations up into smaller pieces.
Imagine the cries of tyranny that would go up if Obama told the IRS to ignore the law and just approve every 501c4 application that came in….
Compared to the cries of tyranny if only allied groups get approval?
At last count the IRS has turned down 1 Obama-allied group, and zero Tea Party groups.
What a disgusting attempt to mislead about what they’ve been doing. Of course they don’t “turn them down.” They keep them in limbo for years. Justice delayed is justice denied, and the process is the punishment.
Justice delayed is justice denied, and the process is the punishment.
Which once again leads one to wonder — why didn’t the groups just self-declare and skip the process? They could have let the IRS’s glacial pace work in their favor.
The IRS doesn’t have the resources to audit many people in a given year, so when a disproportionate number of administration critics get audited, it’s a sign of political intimidation. And no, given how the IRS is behaving, I’m not the least interested in giving them even more resources. In fact, the House should start cutting the IRS’s budget until the agency is more forthcoming on requested information.
when a disproportionate number of administration critics get audited
Assuming facts not in evidence.
IRS testimony in the Congressional investigation has confirmed those facts to be in evidence, as have other investigations into the IRS abuses. The progressives are forever destroying any trust in the IRS as a non-partisan, non-political revenue agency. It’s now seen as a simple shakedown operation, no better than what is common in fascist countries.
You mean in other fascist countries.
IRS testimony in the Congressional investigation has confirmed those facts to be in evidence, as have other investigations into the IRS abuses.
No IRS testimony has indicated that a disproportionate number of administration critics got their tax returns audited. You’re just making things up.
The progressives are forever destroying any trust in the IRS as a non-partisan, non-political revenue agency.
If anything is destroying trust in the IRS as a non-partisan, non-political revenue agency, it’s anti-Obama propaganda and people like Ben Carson who treat being audited as proof of persecution.
Imagine the cries of tyranny that would go up if Obama told the IRS to ignore the law
Um Jim, Obama is telling the IRS to ignore the law. He’s been doing it for awhile now.
“You want the IRS to exempt administration critics from audits?”
No but I don’t want them to select targets based on political opposition to Obama and the Democrats.
“The law says that 501c4 groups can’t be primarily political.”
Primarily is the key word there. You seem to confuse any political action or even a holding a belief contrary to a Democrat’s with being primarily political. But why shouldn’t conservative groups be allowed to act in the manner that Democrat groups have?
“Making that determination takes time and paperwork.”
It used to take three weeks now it takes three years. Even if I were to cede the point that it would take longer to investigate groups, you have to be f’n kidding that you think three or more years is an appropriate amount of time, especially when Democrat groups sailed through with quick approvals. The process is the punishment.
“Asking political groups to fill out forms to qualify for special tax status is not exactly the same thing as state-sponsored racial terrorism.”
They are not being asked to, “fill out forms.” What a euphemism. Looking at the statements by Democrats before and after the IRS scandal broke, it is hard to say that there isn’t a concerted effort by the Democrats to use government agencies to attack their political opponents. And you can’t deny the racial attacks against the Tea Party by Democrats.
The IRS scandal is more than just the targeting of Tea Party and other conservative groups. It is also about the targeting of individuals who dare speak an opinion contrary to Obama and the Democrats as well as the use of other government departments to go after these people. When the EPA, DOJ, IRS, and ATF start going after the same people it means that the person calling the shots has inter-agency authority. That goes straight to the White House.
“The law says you can 1) spend all you want on elections or 2) keep large donations anonymous. You can’t do both.”
You are talking about campaign finance laws regulated by the FEC. The IRS scandal is about the intentional political targeting of groups Democrats and Obama do not like. If Democrats don’t like the law, change it. Go through congress or the FEC to change election laws. Don’t do an end run around the law and use the IRS as your personal attack dogs.
“I wouldn’t say that the current state of law is ideal, but it is the law, and the IRS is stuck trying to enforce it”
No. The IRS wasn’t trying to enforce the FEC regulation regarding the identities of donors over $200. The IRS already admitted that they broke the law in going after Tea Party groups. They are not “just following the law.”
The IRS used invasive questions as a form of opposition research for Obama and the Democrats. The information they collected was disseminated to Democrat groups. The network of associations ascertained through the overly intrusive and politically motivated questions served as providing targets for Democrat political groups to attack and for government agencies to persecute.
It is the same type of methodology used by the Obama campaign to reach out to friendly voters but applied in a more nefarious manner.
All while Democrat groups spent billions of dollars, received preferential treatment, and lobbed racist and other dehumanizing attacks against their opponents.
They are not being asked to, “fill out forms.”
What are they being asked to do?
And you can’t deny the racial attacks against the Tea Party by Democrats.
What are you talking about, and what does it have to do with the IRS?
You are talking about campaign finance laws regulated by the FEC.
One way around those laws is to set up a 501c4 that can collect anonymous donations and use them in election campaigns. As of 2010, the IRS is in charge of keeping that from happening.
It is also about the targeting of individuals who dare speak an opinion contrary to Obama and the Democrats as well as the use of other government departments to go after these people. When the EPA, DOJ, IRS, and ATF start going after the same people it means that the person calling the shots has inter-agency authority. That goes straight to the White House.
That isn’t evidence, it’s paranoia.
The IRS already admitted that they broke the law in going after Tea Party groups.
They admitted that using search terms like “tea party” and “9/12” to screen for 501c4 applicants that might be primarily political was wrong. But the testimony from the people who made that call — including a conservative Republican — make it clear that there was no political motive behind it. They used similar screens that flagged progressive groups. They were handed a controversial new law to enforce, and little guidance on how to do so. That’s regrettable, but it isn’t a scandal or a crime.
What are they being asked to do?
Among other appalling things, they were being asked to describe the content of their prayers.
Among other appalling things, they were being asked to describe the content of their prayers.
A group claims that its public prayer meetings outside Planned Parenthood are educational and non-partisan. The IRS (under its Bush-appointed head) asks them to “Please explain in detail the activities at these prayer meetings”. That’s appalling? How would you suggest the IRS evaluate the group’s claims?
What do you have against anonymous speech?
Can you not make any decisions on your own?
Do you have no free will of your own?
Can you not make any decisions of your own without first asking your government betters?
Citizen’s United was nothing more than the government attempting to restrict the free speech activities of a non-government entity.
Even the ACLU supported the Citizen’s United ruling:
https://www.aclu.org/free-speech/aclu-and-citizens-united
“Any rule that requires the government to determine what political speech is legitimate and how much political speech is appropriate is difficult to reconcile with the First Amendment. Our system of free expression is built on the premise that the people get to decide what speech they want to hear; it is not the role of the government to make that decision for them.”
That’s the nice way to put it. The more truthful way to put it is that it was absolute evil that the government was trying to violate the individual natural rights of the American citizens to speak freely.
This country was built on anonymous speech. The Federalist Papers were written under pen names. That’s only one example.
The Federalist Papers were written under pen names.
Do you see any distinction at all between the Federalist Papers and a $100 million election ad buy?
The IRS is supposed to administer current law. Current law doesn’t allow unlimited anonymous election spending.
No. According to the first amendment there is no distinction between the Federalist Papers, a $100 million ad buy, or a comment on a blog. What part of “Congress shall make no law” is difficult to understand?
Go ahead and make some large secret political contributions, and then explain to the judge that your actions are protected by the first amendment. To date the courts have not shared your interpretation.
“Go ahead and make some large secret political contributions”
Contributing to the campaign of a politician is different than using your own money to express your views. Also, different than contributing to a Tea Party type of group.
The group that benefited the most from Citizen’s United is the Democrats and their activist groups as we saw with their spending levels on political campaigns. Democrats took full advantage while not only demonizing the opposition for trying to set up the networks that would allow them to do the same things as Democrats and using government agencies to attack their opponents.
It is sort of like Obama going off in speeches about evil insurance companies while taking lots of money from them and mandating everyone buy their product.
You might have a leg to stand on if Democrats held themselves to the same standards they hold other people to.
No I don’t see a difference between the Federalist Papers and ad buys (of any size, even $1 trillion). Both are examples of people speaking their mind through whatever channels are available.
What possible difference do you see? Is it some kind of “unfair” amount of speech that one person can buy a lot more ad time than somebody else? So what? Again, you can’t make up your own mind?
How are you going to “fix” such a situation? Saying that someone can only say something up to a certain limit? Who will enforce such a limit? The government? Are you ready for a Republican president to be able to limit how much Democrat groups can say, or spend on saying? Can Democrat unions only spend $100,000, and then they have to stop, or else they will be shot by government troops for saying something “too much”?
Do you really not understand the tyranny you are unleashing with this line of thought?
The only way consistent with liberty that can work is to allow anyone to say anything they want without limitation. There is no other option. There are no “reasonable” limits that can be imposed and the country stay free, because there will always be someone who wants to use the power those “reasonable” limits enable to go beyond those reasonable limits. At that point, we descend into the Soviet Union. There is no other option.
And just to head off the inevitable about my statement of “allow anyone to say anything they want without limitation”, I am talking about “normal” speech about political ideas and debates and whatever else in everyday normal life, not directly harming someone, such as telling your friends that you should all go kill someone.
So, let’s not wander off the reservation on that rhetorical point. I just explained what I meant.
Do you really not understand the tyranny you are unleashing with this line of thought?
Do you understand that campaign finance laws exist, and have existed for some time?
“Do you understand that campaign finance laws exist, and have existed for some time?’
What of it?
Where they limit a non-government group’s ability to speak freely they are tyrannical.
Donating directly to a campaign is different than speaking yourself. I’m talking about the latter, not the former.
You asked about the difference between the Federalist Papers and an ad buy, only in a later comment did you bring up campaign contributions. Citizens United did not address direct campaign contributions, only independent speech.
Donating directly to a campaign is different than speaking yourself.
How different is it, really? Let’s say my favored candidate wants to buy $100m in TV ads, but doesn’t have the cash. Meanwhile I have $100m burning a hole in my pocket, but I’ve already given the legal max. So I buy the airtime and “speak” the ads “myself”.
There’s no way to have meaningful limits on campaign giving without also limiting “speaking yourself”.
“Do you see any distinction at all between the Federalist Papers and a $100 million election ad buy?”
The vast majority of Tea Party groups and individuals were not spending $100m on ads. At best you could say that in aggregate their total spending might reach such an amount. The vast majority of groups that were spending that type of cash on ads and other election related activities were Democrat groups.
“The IRS is supposed to administer current law. Current law doesn’t allow unlimited anonymous election spending.”
The IRS isn’t the FEC. They are two separate departments. It is kinda crazy but you are advocating for the same cross agency coordination to attack political opponents that you deny even took place.
The vast majority of groups that were spending that type of cash on ads and other election related activities were Democrat groups.
How about evidence that the “vast majority” of big-spending groups in the 2012 election were supporting Democrats.
Jim, you do realize that Pax Americana has unsustainable financial liabilities. I wonder how Jim and his Pajama Boy buddies will be able to tell people what to do when the army and police are no longer being paid?
unsustainable financial liabilities
A myth. Our “liabilities” are promises we’ve made to ourselves.
Promises we’ve made to ourselves, so they can be broken on a whim, right? Those promises we’ve made to ourselves include deduction for Social Security with the promise that there would be a pension there at retirement. In other countries, there are similar schemes. The Baby Boomers have been paying into it their whole working lives, and some of them are already retiring. In 2019 half that generation will be 65 or older. The tail end of the Baby Boom and subsequent generations will see that promise broken – no pension for you if you’re currently under 55 – just keep paying! But that’s ok, because it’s only a promise we’ve made to ourselves, right?
Promises we’ve made to ourselves, so they can be broken on a whim, right?
Keep them or modify them or break them. We have a variety of options. The idea that the country is doomed because it’s promised itself too much is silly.
Well, that obviously makes a difference. /sarc
It doesn’t matter who the liability is to. Someone has to pay, meaning someone has to be taxed, and if the liability is high enough, either that someone is plundered or the promise gets broken.
It’s really more a promise that one group is plundered to pay for another group. And the group to be plundered is usually the younger middle class. The young have to pay for the old through Social Security, and now the young have to pay for the old through Obamacare. The middle class has to pay for the poor. The old as a group are the ones who are the most well off. The young are just starting and have more and more taken from them as subsequent Democrat generations promise more and more of the young middle class’s money to every other group.
Why don’t “we” just stop taking from one group and giving to other groups based only on those group’s base existences?
” a promise that one group is plundered to pay for another group.”
otherwise known as democrat business as usual. Perpetrated under a fiction that profit is theft and plunder under color of law isn’t theft.