Skip to main content

View Diary: Two-thirds of IRS 501(c)(4) Challenges were Other than Tea-related (24 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Their complaint is three-fold: (6+ / 0-)

    1.  While some applicants were given extra screening based on their applications (perfectly legitimate -- and accounting for your statistics), others applicants were culled for extra screening based on the names, and the name search was heavily weighted to words used by conservative groups, like "tea party" "patriot" and "9/12."  That screening by names -- by conservative names -- has been admitted and is indefensible, as many Democrats,  including the President, have stated.  

    2.  They say that conservative groups were strung along for inordinately long periods of time without any response or contact from the IRS (over a year,on the average, according to what Sekulow said this morning).  I don't know if that's true or not.  We'll see what the statistics bear out after discovery.  If the statistics show that conservatives groups were handled with the same timeliness as other groups, fine, no problem.  If the IRS can show differences is their response time based on things OTHER THAN the name and/or political ideology (like errors on applications), fine, no problem.  If not, if there's a significant difference between the time it took the IRS to respond to a conservative group and the time it took the IRS to respond to others that is not justified on grounds other than name and/or political ideology, that's a big problem, and is indefensible.  

    3.  They say that the IRS asked for information that it had no business asking about, like the names of donors (since 501(c)(4) donations are not tax deductible, the IRS had no business asking that), contacts with certain people who had conservative ideology (not candidates, which would have been ok to ask about), social networking of people, etc.  There are questions that the IRS had no business asking for a 501(c)(4) -- that's pretty clear.  There are letters from the IRS to back that up.  If the IRS asked those things of all groups, or all groups that had some kind of ideology (regardless of the nature of the ideology)  it's just ineptitude.  If the IRS disproportionately asked for that kind of information from conservative groups, that's a big problem, and is indefensible.  

    Really, I don't understand why some people here want to defend action that the President, and other Democrats, have specifically said is inexcusable.  If Democrats here want to maintain credibility, they need to recognize that it is completely improper, and utterly inexcusable, for the IRS to treat taxpayers differently based on their political ideology.  It's hypocritical to take the attitude, expressed or implied, "it's ok because conservative groups were targeted." That attitude essentially means that you are giving the next conservative administration permission to target progressive groups in the same way.  

    •  Some people CLEALY need to give more thought ... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      VClib

      to the damage to credibility which is occurring.  And "amen" to your other points, too.

      "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the universe." -- Albert Einstein

      by Neuroptimalian on Wed May 29, 2013 at 12:26:04 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site