Skip to main content

View Diary: Open thread for night owls: Summoning the godfather of investibators (134 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The IRS is correct to put scrutiny on (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JeffW, high uintas, Calamity Jean

    groups claiming the be "social welfare" organizations, thus to enabling them to keep the identity of their donors secret, if there is sufficient reason to believe that the primary purpose of the organizations is political.  By giving themselves names that align with political rabble rousers (i.e., Tea Party, Patriots, etc.), such groups invite scrutiny until the facts are known.  (I assure you, if they gave themselves the name "Occupy" they'd be in for the same kind of scrutiny.)  Once they proved themselves NOT to be primarily political, they were given the status they requested in their applications.  

    With the budget cuts to the IRS, and with the floodgates that the criminal SCOTUS decision, Citizens United, opened up, it's completely understandable that overworked, understaffed IRS employees would use shortcuts to get their task accomplished.

    "Why reasonable people go stark raving mad when anything involving a Negro comes up, is something I don’t pretend to understand." ~ Atticus Finch, "To Kill a Mockingbird"

    by SottoVoce on Thu May 23, 2013 at 03:36:40 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  None of that is accurate (0+ / 0-)

      The terms they used to target groups were only on the rw side.

      The use of these terms predated increase in applications

      That all applications were eventually approved indicates there was no reason to treat them differently in the first place.

      There are no excuses for subjective and arbitrary treatment by the IRS no matter who it is.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site