Even Newer Disclosures on IRS Conduct

[jj]

http://xfinity.comcast.net/articles/news-general/20130624/US--IRS.Political.Groups/

The IRS also did additional screening on a bunch of so-called liberal causes. It wasn't political at all, it was directed at what looked like political advocacy groups.

There was no discrimination evident, this is a completely falsified scandal as far as it having political implications.

Those claiming otherwise, and who claim certain knowledge, are now shown as obvious liars.

 

[AlBell]

http://xfinity.comcast.net/articles/news-general/20130624/US--IRS.Political.Groups/

The IRS also did additional screening on a bunch of so-called liberal causes. It wasn't political at all, it was directed at what looked like political advocacy groups.

There was no discrimination evident, this is a completely falsified scandal as far as it having political implications.

Those claiming otherwise, and who claim certain knowledge, are now shown as obvious liars.

Ya think? Here's some confirmation-bias-oriented comments from the conservative viewpoint.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corne...nally-thought-contrary-reports-eliana-johnson

Acting IRS commissioner Danny Werfel on Monday told reporters that the now-infamous “Be On The Lookout” list was far broader than was originally disclosed in the Treasury Department inspector general’s report. Reports from outlets including the Associated Press, which I cited in my original report, and now Bloomberg News, confirmed Werfel’s account, indicating that various versions of the list not only included terms like “tea party” but also “progressive,” “occupy,” and “Israel.”

A November 2010 version of the list obtained by National Review Online, however, suggests that while the list did contain the word “progressive,” screeners were in fact instructed to treat “progressive” groups differently from “tea party” groups. Whereas screeners were merely alerted that a designation of 501(c)(3) status “may not be appropriate” for applications containing the word ”progressive” – 501(c)(3) groups are prohibited from conducting any political activities – they were told to send those of tea-party groups off ”to Group 7822″ for further scrutiny.

But you go right on pretending this is and was all smoke, no fire. I'll bet one or more IRS agents eventually decide not to perjure themseves.

 

[A'isha]

Ya think? Here's some confirmation-bias-oriented comments from the conservative viewpoint.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corne...nally-thought-contrary-reports-eliana-johnson



But you go right on pretending this is and was all smoke, no fire. I'll bet one or more IRS agents eventually decide not to perjure themseves.

A desperate nitpicking spin attempt written by the same NRO columnist who once defended the Nazi Party platform just because Obama called the Holocaust "senseless"?

That's what you're going with, is it?

 

[Ziggurat]

A desperate nitpicking spin attempt written by the same NRO columnist who once defended the Nazi Party platform just because Obama called the Holocaust "senseless"?

That's what you're going with, is it?

You can try to brush this under the rug with an ad hominem against the reporter, but the source material won't go away. And the source material really does suggest different treatment for "tea party" groups and "progressive" groups. Can you address the actual source document? Or is this ad hom all you've got?

 

[Denver]

I suspect a large part of the defense here will be on the efficacy of profiling, and demonstrating how statistics from the past suggest ways to best allocate limited resources to screen a very large number of applications.

 

[Ziggurat]

I suspect a large part of the defense here will be on the efficacy of profiling, and demonstrating how statistics from the past suggest ways to best allocate limited resources to screen a very large number of applications.

There were no past statistics for the efficacy of profiling in the basis of the phrase "tea party".

 

[Magyar]

What seems to be missing from this conversation of the paranoid right is the fact that
A. Virtually non of the organizations really deserve a non tax status
B. even if they received non tax status. The real and sole practical benefit to this is to hide the contributors list

Given the activities like the cock brothers for example far more scrutiny is required for any of these apps. - including the ones on the left - rather then less.

The teabaggers whining seems to be far more a about "we can't cheat as easily" than anything else.

 

[Denver]

There were no past statistics for the efficacy of profiling in the basis of the phrase "tea party".

But were there statistics and processes used over time for profiling? Seems there were (BOLOs). Tea Party may have been just one more profile in a pile of others. The difference between standard profiling (as per my above description), and special ones that may have been added for political reasons, I think will be the meat of the investigation.

 

[eeyore1954]

A desperate nitpicking spin attempt written by the same NRO columnist who once defended the Nazi Party platform just because Obama called the Holocaust "senseless"?

That's what you're going with, is it?

Does the list specify any specific action that needs to be taken with the term progressive like it does with Tea Party?
All Tea Party applications were forwarded and for a period of over a year (IIRC) not one was approved.

 

[eeyore1954]

You can try to brush this under the rug with an ad hominem against the reporter, but the source material won't go away. And the source material really does suggest different treatment for "tea party" groups and "progressive" groups. Can you address the actual source document? Or is this ad hom all you've got?

Agreed

 

[Ziggurat]

What seems to be missing from this conversation of the paranoid right is the fact that
A. Virtually non of the organizations really deserve a non tax status

That is simply false under current tax law. And if you think it's OK for the IRS to try to rewrite tax law to suit your preferences, then you're not only discarding the notion of separation of powers, you're basically saying you don't even value the democratic process.

Given the activities like the cock brothers

Ha ha! That's so funny, because of hte ghey!

Jeeze, what are you, twelve?

The teabaggers

Why did I bother asking?

 

[Ziggurat]

But were there statistics and processes used over time for profiling? Seems there were (BOLOs). Tea Party may have been just one more profile in a pile of others.

That's the whole point of this document: they were not just one more profile in a pile of profiles. They were specifically targeted for handling that other BOLO terms (such as "progressive") were not singled out for.

 

[Denver]

That's the whole point of this document: they were not just one more profile in a pile of profiles. They were specifically targeted for handling that other BOLO terms (such as "progressive") were not singled out for.

Sorry, which document? There were a couple in this thread quoted.

 

[A'isha]

You can try to brush this under the rug with an ad hominem against the reporter,

She's not a reporter.

but the source material won't go away. And the source material really does suggest different treatment for "tea party" groups and "progressive" groups. Can you address the actual source document? Or is this ad hom all you've got?

No, the source material "suggests" that there were a number of different ways that submissions with a large variety of "keywords" were treated, with "tea party" groups not singled out for unusual treatment that none of the other groups received. Cases related to healthcare legislation and the Affordable Care Act went to Group 7821, for example, while applications concerning medical marijuana (which is far more of a "progressive" issue than a "tea party" one!) were to be sent to Group 7888.

The fact that the NRO article singles out the fact that "tea party" issues were to be sent to a certain Group while completely ignoring the other issues that were to be sent to other Groups in order to falsely portray these "tea party" applicants as uniquely victimized is just blatant partisan nonsense.

 

[daredelvis]

She's not a reporter.



No, the source material "suggests" that there were a number of different ways that submissions with a large variety of "keywords" were treated, with "tea party" groups not singled out for unusual treatment that none of the other groups received. Cases related to healthcare legislation and the Affordable Care Act went to Group 7821, for example, while applications concerning medical marijuana (which is far more of a "progressive" issue than a "tea party" one!) were to be sent to Group 7888.

The fact that the NRO article singles out the fact that "tea party" issues were to be sent to a certain Group while completely ignoring the other issues that were to be sent to other Groups in order to falsely portray these "tea party" applicants as uniquely victimized is just blatant partisan nonsense.

There you go again, sweeping it under the rug with your "facts" and "reality". You won't fool us. Especially when we have solid sources like NRO, and Issa. These defenders of liberty are just standing up for what is right, and going after progressive political organizations the same way they are going after tea party political organizations is right (going after the progressives, not the tea party). Selective outrage is not only a god given right, it is the only platform left to the GOP.

Daredelvis

 

[BenBurch]

It's exactly what I said it was; Normal procedure for the IRS.

 

[eeyore1954]

She's not a reporter.



No, the source material "suggests" that there were a number of different ways that submissions with a large variety of "keywords" were treated, with "tea party" groups not singled out for unusual treatment that none of the other groups received. Cases related to healthcare legislation and the Affordable Care Act went to Group 7821, for example, while applications concerning medical marijuana (which is far more of a "progressive" issue than a "tea party" one!) were to be sent to Group 7888.

The fact that the NRO article singles out the fact that "tea party" issues were to be sent to a certain Group while completely ignoring the other issues that were to be sent to other Groups in order to falsely portray these "tea party" applicants as uniquely victimized is just blatant partisan nonsense.

There were a number of different way true but the progressive one was like traveling on the Disney Monorail while the Tea Party one was like the Cross Bronx Expressway.

During the period that Tea Party applications were languishing those with progressive in the name were being approved. There was clearly a different more difficult path for Tea Party applications. In 2011 only 1 was approved, only four were approved between April 2010 and April 2012.

As a point of comparison, we tried to identify liberal groups approved for 501(c)(4) status since 2010. A search for “progress,” “progressive,” “liberal” and “equality” finds 32 groups. (This might not be a representative sample — identifying left-leaning groups is more difficult, as there are is no clearly defined nomenclature on the left equivalent to the Tea Party.) The I.R.S. approved these groups at a fairly steady rate from 2010 through 2012. The I.R.S. approved 13 in 2010, nine in 2011 and 10 in 2012.

 

[A'isha]

There were a number of different way true but the progressive one was like traveling on the Disney Monorail while the Tea Party one was like the Cross Bronx Expressway.

Which is an entirely separate issue from the claims in the NRO article.

During the period that Tea Party applications were languishing those with progressive in the name were being approved. There was clearly a different more difficult path for Tea Party applications. In 2011 only 1 was approved, only four were approved between April 2010 and April 2012.

As jj points out in the OP, given the explicitly political (and and political advocacy) nature of the Tea Party astroturf movement, that's not exactly surprising. Which, naturally, can be seen from the cries on the right that Romney would have been elected if only the IRS hadn't put additional scrutiny on these groups (ignoring the fact that if granting these groups 501(c)(4) would have affected the outcome of the election, they shouldn't have been given 501(c)(4) status in the first place).

 

[eeyore1954]

Which is an entirely separate issue from the claims in the NRO article.



.

Looks like it is the same as what was in the article to me. Other terms were not subject to the same scrutiny.

 

[A'isha]

Looks like it is the same as what was in the article to me. Other terms were not subject to the same scrutiny.

That's not actually what's in the article. The article says that "progressive" groups were simply marked for screeners, "tea party" groups were sent to a whole separate Group for extra scrutiny. And that's false, since "progressive" groups were also sent to a separate Group for extra scrutiny (as were a number of other groups whose political affiliation could not be determined by the keyword used).

What the Fivethirtyeight blog is doing is tabulating the number of "progressive" versus "tea party" groups that were approved for tax exempt status after that scrutiny-sorting was done.