Kimberley Strassel:
President Obama and Democrats have been at great pains to insist they knew nothing about IRS targeting of conservative 501(c)(4) nonprofits before the 2012 election. They’ve been at even greater pains this week to ensure that the same conservative groups are silenced in the 2014 midterms.
That’s the big, dirty secret of the omnibus negotiations. As one of the only bills destined to pass this year, the omnibus was—behind the scenes—a flurry of horse trading. One of the biggest fights was over GOP efforts to include language to stop the IRS from instituting a new round of 501(c)(4) targeting. The White House is so counting on the tax agency to muzzle its political opponents that it willingly sacrificed any manner of its own priorities to keep the muzzle in place.
And now back to our previously scheduled outrage over the Chris Christie administration’s abuse of traffic cones on the George Washington Bridge.
The fight was sparked by a new rule that the Treasury Department and the IRS introduced during the hush of Thanksgiving recess, ostensibly to “improve” the law governing nonprofits. What the rule in fact does is recategorize as “political” all manner of educational activities that 501(c)(4) social-welfare organizations currently engage in.
It’s IRS targeting all over again, only this time by administration design and with the raw political goal—as House Ways and Means Chairman Dave Camp (R., Mich.) notes—of putting “tea party groups out of business.”
Congressional sources tell me that House Appropriations Chairman Hal Rogers (R., Ky.) had two priorities in the omnibus negotiations. One was getting in protection for groups that morally oppose ObamaCare’s contraception-coverage requirement. The other was language that would put a hold on the IRS rule.
The White House and Senate Democrats had their own wish list, including an increase in funding for the International Monetary Fund, the president’s prekindergarten program and more ObamaCare dollars.
Yet my sources say that throughout the negotiations Democrats went all in on keeping the IRS rule, even though it meant losing their own priorities. In the final hours before the omnibus was introduced Monday night, the administration made a last push for IMF money. Asked to negotiate that demand in the context of new IRS language, it refused.
Evidently there are new rules being written that will specifically target conservatives. Hello they were caught and now that it is in the open, they just continue on? and those eunuchs on the hill just sit by and let it happen.
I don’t understand why (the conservative groups that have been targeted.) can’t file a class action lawsuit against the IRS and Obama administration.
The only place politically biased IRS targeting existed is in the fantasy world created by the right wing media. Liberal organizations were given the same sort of scrutiny. That information, along with testimony and evidence supporting it, have been selectively left out of their reporting.
The fact of the matter is that organizations that are engaging in activity that is primarily politically motivated don’t qualify for 501(c)(4) tax exemptions. The range of purposes of qualifying organizations is clearly spelled out:
The IRS was doing precisely what it’s supposed to do.
I have no desire that federal deficits or my own tax burden should be increased because political organizations are being allowed to claim tax exemptions they’re not legally entitled to claim.
@Greg:
Right. Three liberal groups, two tied to the Democratic Party of Texas, compared to over 200 conservative groups. That’s what constitutes equal in a progressive’s mind.
@retire05, #4:
“Equal” isn’t really a question of the comparative counts in a case like this, since there weren’t equal numbers of new conservative and new liberal groups popping up across the country. There’s no need to get into the logic of that, however, since he numbers themselves disprove the claim of any anti-conservative bias to begin with.
Tax Analysts did a study of the 298 tax exemption applications that were selected by the IRS for special attention owing to the possibility of disqualifying political orientations. Of those, 46 organizations were found to have been selected because “Tea Party,” “patriots,” or “9-12 project” were included in their official names. Compare that with the total of 48 organizations that Tax Analysts found to be nonconservative, which are listed in Table 1. The remainder weren’t clearly one or the other.
Those numbers clearly disprove the assertion that conservative groups were being disproportionately singled out for special review. The claim of an anti-conservative selection bias is a load of horse manure. Which, of course, doesn’t stop people who don’t actually care about the truth from continuing to make the claim.
@Greg:
Ah yes, we all know that if the IRS had targeted the Lefties, the leftie media would never have mentioned that. Yeah, right.
@Greg:
You’re an expert on horse manure, are you Greg?
Having watched FOX News for a while, I feel as if I might be becoming one.
@Greg:
You are absolutely the epitome of dishonesty to make such ridiculous claims in defense of the IRS targetting of conservatives. You know damned well that if Bush had targetted the leftist political groups as Obama had the IRS do in the run up to 2012, you would be howling with outrage, and demanding a special prosecutor to investigate.
Again you demonstrate how leftists have a complete lack of integrity.
I think the new rule is targeting conservative groups because it specifically omits the same pressure on liberal UNIONS while it only aims against actions of social-welfare groups.
The IRS’ rules for UNIONS are under 501(c)(5) category and can play politics all it wants without interference.
The IRS’ new rules are only for groups in the 501(c)(4) category.
That’s where most conservatives new organizations are located, tax-wise.
Maybe conservatives ought to re-organize as UNIONS, thus freeing themselves from all IRS constraints against political action?
After all, if UNIONS can invite non-working people to ”join,” why can’t conservatives create UNIONS of non-related, even non-working people as well?
Sauce for the goose…..
@Greg:
Yes, they have the Dims wallowing in it fairly regularly.
@Pete, #9:
You apparently didn’t like the information provided in post #5. Perhaps it would be more constructive to explain what you believe is inaccurate about it, rather than insulting the person who posted it.
I have no desire that federal deficits or my own tax burden should be increased because of a slew of Liberal Created Policies, Insane Agenda’s and their own crazed Left Wing Ideology which are all DESIGNED to do just THAT!
Many policies I might add are FAILED POLICIES which do nothing but ADD to the Federal Deficit or MY OWN TAX BURDEN…
@Nanny G#10 Brilliant!! Wonder if there are any negative loop holes to that…
The Dimocrats and Liberal Progressives have been trying for years to silence any and all Conservatives… and their views….the ridicule, venom, lies about them, the Liberal made propaganda against them is perpetual…foolhardy, not to mention – just flagrant. Anyone who thinks this is not a truism – is certainly being totally dishonest…
With that said, how could anyone ‘honestly’ defend a FACT the same has found a home within the halls of Government (IRS)…and BY Government?? After all, Government is where it has started… (“your enemies” – remember??) …Government is the biggest sounding board perpetuating the venom against Conservatives which is then regurgitated by the liberal/progressive sheeple and the compliant media….
Makes me wonder what they do to those republicans who do tend to lean a little more conservatively (right)…in order to squelch their voices…which are actually the voices of the Conservative citizenry…that is except for a “brave” and “courageous” few…Ted Cruz et. al. ..
But still no substantive response concerning what was revealed by the Tax Analyst study; that claims of politically biased IRS targeting appear to have no basis in reality.
http://www.economist.com/node/11565362
Greggie’s guy, Martin A. Sullivan of TaxAnalyst, is the subject of the Economist article. And it ain’t purty. So, take what Greggie, and his liberal boot licker, have to say with a grain of salt.
@retire05, #17:
Yet another ad hominem fallacy—that is, a personal attack—rather than any effort to deal with the facts that have been presented.
It doesn’t matter that Martin A. Sullivan is connected with Tax Analysts. What matters is the information that the Tax Analysts report reveals—that 48 of the 501(c)(3) applications IRS singled out for closer inspection were non-conservative groups, compared with 46 that were conservative. They have listed all 48 of those nonconservative groups by name.
Do you have to be drawn a picture? Of the applications the IRS singled out that could be clearly identified as either conservative or non-conservative, more were non-conservative. The allegation of a selection bias against conservative groups is a load of horse manure.
I can understand why people such as yourself resist efforts to improve the standards of public education.
The very first paragraph of your Tax Analysts site states the IRS inappropriately investigated conservative groups, and that charges were written up. It says the IRS admitted wrongdoing. I would quote it in this post for you, but as I am writing this from my phone, I can only refer you to your own posted article.
@Pete, #19:
That would be this paragraph:
I have never understood why “names and policy views associated with conservative Tea Party causes” would be considered “inappropriate criteria” for initial screening, when a primary focus on political advocacy specifically excludes an organization from 501(c)(3) eligibility. Would it have made sense to automatically assume that organizations with names including the words “Tea Party,” “patriots,” or “9-12 project” were most likely nonpolitical? Were not most so named organizations actively working for the election of republican candidates?
@Greg:
Yet you have no qualms for leftist, pro-Obama groups being given tax exempt status.
And you totally gloss over the fact that the IRS admitted what it did was wrong. Yet you claim confusion as to why conservatives rail against what Lehrner did (for which she stated through her attorney she would take the 5th, should Congress subpoena her) as a clear cut political abuse of power.
If you had a shred of integrity you would admit that had Reagan or either Bush done something so egregious to leftist groups you would be shrieking for impeachment.
Greg
all the exemptions you name, should be aply to the TEA PARTY, YES THAT’S ON YOUR NUMBER 3,
they are working to protect all those you named as exempt,
so the IRS should do their work and pay the TEA PARTY FOR ALL THOSE EXEMPTIONS,
and they are the best at it, that’s what the IRS are there for,
work for the people that’s what they suppose to do, the people pay their earning not their UNIONS
not OBAMA WHO IS PAID BY THE PEOPLE ALSO,
HEY, IRS, DON’T YOU FORGET IT, EVER,