Comments on: Was the IRS scandal a surprise?

By: Melvin H.

Melvin H. — Sat, 18 May 2013 21:19:19 +0000

BarNord: It’s not the “special status” that is the problem, it is the time delays before approval or denial of a tea party/conservative group’s application (two to three years in many cases, or the application is still pending for that long), plus the “extra” questions sent along by the IRS that–quite honestly–are none of the IRS’ business.

By: Walter Olson

Walter Olson — Sat, 18 May 2013 14:15:43 +0000

>BarNord: I think it’s time for you to move on to some other line of defense, since the IRS and White House conceded some days ago that the rules were not applied evenhandedly and that groups of particular political coloration were singled out for “BOLO” (Be On the Look Out) flagging. You might also want to read up on the difference between (c)4 groups (which can be entirely devoted to changing law and government policy and can also engage in some electioneering provided it is not a primary mission) and (c)3 groups (which are supposed to keep further away from electoral politics and legislative advocacy). This scandal is over the way the IRS, which had previously approved (c)4 status for giant groups deeply involved in Obama daily political messaging such as the Center for American Progress and Organizing for Action, put whole categories of local Constitution-reading clubs on a slow boat to China approval-wise. They’ve *admitted* they used differential screening that unfairly disadvantaged the latter. Why won’t you admit it?

By: BarNord

BarNord — Sat, 18 May 2013 13:49:27 +0000

Congress passed a law which required the IRS to determine whether a particular group is eligible for tax -free status. One rule in that law is that the group cannot engage in politics. Some organizations with political-sounding names, like “tea party”, ask for special treatment but are outraged that their policies are questioned, even though the law requires such an investigation before granting special status.

By: BarNord

BarNord — Fri, 17 May 2013 13:52:05 +0000

Whether those organization receive and enjoy that special status is exactly the point. The original law (and still extant) law uses the word “exclusively” in regard to the extent of the group’s social welfare work. It specifically precludes any political work, yet this is what the IRS now allows since they changed the meaning of the word “exclusively” to mean “primarily.” Not one dictionary in the world says they mean the same thing.

By: Walter Olson

Walter Olson — Thu, 16 May 2013 16:00:00 +0000

On the notion that the "real scandal" is not the IRS's differential handling of applicants based on their politics, see the cluster of links that leads off my post this morning. Note that groups on both sides of the spectrum like the ACLU, NRA, and Sierra Club, whose role in American life is mostly to promote a set of controversial ideological positions, have long benefited from c4 status, so long as they do not employ entities in that class primarily for electioneering. Neither side on the political scene seems to be comfortable with interpretations of the law that could lead to mass revocations for such groups, and I can't say I'm surprised at that.

By: BarNord

BarNord — Thu, 16 May 2013 15:12:13 +0000

As has been pointed out by at least one commentator, the real scandal is that the IRS blatantly disregards the actual law, which says these organizations must be EXCLUSIVELY for the public good and not political, and substituted the word “primarily” for “exclusively.,” thus making a mockery of the process.

By: C Hill

C Hill — Thu, 16 May 2013 13:54:03 +0000

Thank you.

By: Walter Olson

Walter Olson — Thu, 16 May 2013 00:50:55 +0000

Because the Treasury inspector general’s report — highly critical of the agency, and confirming the essentials of what critics had been charging about differential treatment — was due to come out this week. It was sure to touch off a furor on Capitol Hill, at least.

By: C Hill

C Hill — Wed, 15 May 2013 21:26:57 +0000

What I don’t understand is why they decided to “roll it out” at all. With this going on so long, why now?

What have I missed? Why ‘tell on yourself’ now, when the media has been pretty much uninterested in this? Why confess and apologize unless you’re trying to beat someone else to the punch, or unless you’re trying to divert attention from something worse?