2. The leaders of the IRS have visited the White House over 100 times. During the GWB Administration it was about once. At the very least that's . . . interesting.

Ray Jay wrote:

Ricky:

The IRS has a mandate to enforce the laws and regulations regarding taxation. If they know that a certain class of organization is prone to tax avoidance or misuse of taxation laws, they have a duty to focus their efforts there in order to ensure the groups do not act with impunity.
If, as the NY Times says, there was this propensity - those in Congress complaining are complaining about effective enforcement of laws that they swore to uphold.

But they don't have the right to target (e.g. discriminate against) organizations that are legitimately against excessive government taxation. That's no different then the police refusing to protect the homes of anarchists from a thief.

freeman3 wrote:Well, I think it would be wrong to audit groups just because they are anti-tax. However, a group that uses a name affiliated with a particular political party probably should expect some heightened scrutiny when they seek 503(c)(4) status (e.g. if you're going to put Tea Party in your and then claim you are not primarily a political group, you probably should expect the IRS to poke around some). I''m not sure that the IRS must look for an equivalent progressive filter in that their job is to monitor tax compliance in an efficient way and I think common sense would tell you that any progressive filter tied to a political party would field few if any groups trying to get 503(c)(4).

But the IRS had to be acting in good faith. It does appear that Tea Party groups were seeking questionable 503(c)(4) status. It also appears that Democratic politicians were unhappy about that and were seeking to alert the IRS to potential misuse. I don't find that to be improper, either, as long as they are merely public statements without any pressure being put on the IRS to scrutinize conservative over liberal groups.

The question, again, is whether pressure was put on the IRS to look at these groups. If there was no pressure then I'm sorry I don't see most people getting upset about this. These Tea Party groups are not innocent there as far as I can tell--how does a political group think it can all of a sudden become a social welfare group, not list their donors, and get preferential tax treatment?

I don't know what would be a reasonable number of visits by the IRS to the White House. I saw the figure for George Bush but I am wondering what it would be for other presidents? Let's assume it's high and then the assumption is that they were discussing something. But what? And with whom?

As I said, you need to link this to pressure put by the White House on the IRS to go after these Tea Party groups. Even hints could be problematic but you have got to get that link for a big scandal. Right now, conservatives only have speculation. I doubt they are going to come up with anything.

freeman3 wrote:So apparently there are just as many progressive groups taking advantage of this 503(c)(4) classification as conservative ones, DF? Since you say I'm wrong why don't you prove I'm wrong.

They are supposed to target behavior, specifically illegal behavior.

If they find communications that indicate that these groups might be acting outside the narrow .R.S. agents are obligated to determine whether a 501(c)(4) group is primarily promoting “social welfare.” While such groups are permitted some election involvement, it cannot be an organization’s primary activity. That judgment does not hinge strictly on the proportion of funds a group spends on campaign ads, but on an amorphous mix of facts and circumstances
Emerge America, which trained women to run for office, was granted 501(c)(4) recognition in 2006, but its status was revoked in 2012. Training people how to run for office is not in itself partisan activity, but the I.R.S. determined that the group trained only Democratic women and was operated to benefit one party

The reason that the preponderance of organizations investigated are conservative. The vast preponderance of new organizations set up to take advantage of this were conservative

rickyp wrote:fate

They are supposed to target behavior, specifically illegal behavior.

Absolutely right.
This isn't stopping Hispanic looking people on the street to ask for their papers.
This is finding specific language in web sites, and in communication that indicates that organizations are specifically political when the tax code says they must be social welfare organizations.

Organizing for Action is a nonprofit organization established to support President Obama in achieving enactment of the national agenda Americans voted for on Election Day 2012.

If they find communications that indicate that these groups might be acting outside the narrow .R.S. agents are obligated to determine whether a 501(c)(4) group is primarily promoting “social welfare.” While such groups are permitted some election involvement, it cannot be an organization’s primary activity. That judgment does not hinge strictly on the proportion of funds a group spends on campaign ads, but on an amorphous mix of facts and circumstances
Emerge America, which trained women to run for office, was granted 501(c)(4) recognition in 2006, but its status was revoked in 2012. Training people how to run for office is not in itself partisan activity, but the I.R.S. determined that the group trained only Democratic women and was operated to benefit one party

Methinks they do protest too much.

When the Barack H. Obama Foundation sought tax-exempt status to raise money for good works in Kenya, the Internal Revenue Service provided quick help.

The IRS approved charitable status for the foundation, which was run by President Obama’s brother and named after his father, in about a month’s time. The IRS also agreed to give the group this important financial status retroactively, back to 2009, when it had begun its fundraising.

The 34 days the IRS’s Cincinnati office took to process the foundation’s application stands in contrast to the waits of several months — and sometimes longer than a year — that several conservative groups say they experienced with the same office. Obama has apologized, saying Americans have a right to be angry that the office improperly targeted conservative groups for extra scrutiny.

The IRS handling of the Obama-named group was revealed this week by a conservative watchdog group, the National Legal and Policy Center, and reported by the Daily Caller on Thursday. The Washington Post confirmed reports through public records of the group’s application and the IRS approval letter, signed by the unit director Lois Lerner.

Abon’go Malik Obama, the foundation’s executive director and the president’s brother, was not immediately available for comment. IRS and White House officials did not return calls and e-mails.

In 2009, the Barack H. Obama Foundation was accused by the National Legal and Policy Center of being a scofflaw. The group had been promoting itself as a charity and seeking donations that it said would be tax-deductible, but it lacked the required tax-exempt status. Groups must have or have an active application for tax-exempt status to solicit such donations.

Additional scrutiny of conservative organizations’ activities by the IRS did not solely originate in the agency’s Cincinnati office, with requests for information coming from other offices and often bearing the signatures of higher-ups at the agency, according to attorneys representing some of the targeted groups. At least one letter requesting information about one of the groups bears the signature of Lois Lerner, the suspended director of the IRS Exempt Organizations department in Washington.

Jay Sekulow, an attorney representing 27 conservative political advocacy organizations that applied to the Internal Revenue Service for tax-exempt status, provided some of the letters to NBC News. He said the groups’ contacts with the IRS prove that the practices went beyond a few “front line” employees in the Cincinnati office, as the IRS has maintained.

“We've dealt with 15 agents, including tax law specialists -- that's lawyers -- from four different offices, including (the) Treasury (Department) in Washington, D.C.,” Sekulow said. “So the idea that this is a couple of rogue agents in Cincinnati is not correct.”

Among the letters were several that bore return IRS addresses other than Cincinnati, including "Department of the Treasury / Internal Revenue Service / Washington, D.C.," and the signatures of IRS officials higher up the chain. Two letters with "Department of the Treasury / Internal Revenue Service / Washington, D.C." letterhead were signed by "Tax Law Specialist(s)" from Exempt Organizations Technical Group 1 and Technical Group 2. Lerner’s signature, which appeared to be a stamp rather than an actual signature, appeared on a letter requesting additional information from the Ohio Liberty Council Corp.

Yet, this was only the latest attack on the news media under Holder's leadership. Despite his record, he expressed surprise at the hearing that the head of the Republican National Committee had called for his resignation. After all, Holder pointed out, he did nothing. That is, of course, precisely the point. Unlike the head of the RNC, I am neither a Republican nor conservative, and I believe Holder should be fired.

The 'sin eater'

Holder's refusal to accept responsibility for the AP investigation was something of a change for the political insider. His value to President Obama has been his absolute loyalty. Holder is what we call a "sin eater" inside the Beltway — high-ranking associates who shield presidents from responsibility for their actions. Richard Nixon had H.R. Haldeman and John Ehrlichman. Ronald Reagan had Oliver North and Robert "Bud" McFarlane. George W. Bush had the ultimate sin eater: Dick Cheney, who seemed to have an insatiable appetite for sins to eat.. lder was so busy denying responsibility for today's scandals, he began denying known facts about older scandals, such as the "Fast and Furious" gun operation.

In the end, Holder was the best witness against his continuing in office. His insistence that he did nothing was a telling moment. The attorney general has done little in his tenure to protect civil liberties or the free press. Rather, Holder has supervised a comprehensive erosion of privacy rights, press freedom and due process. This ignoble legacy was made possible by Democrats who would look at their shoes whenever the Obama administration was accused of constitutional abuses.

On Thursday, Obama responded to the outcry over the AP and Fox scandals by calling for an investigation by ... you guessed it ... Eric Holder. He ordered Holder to meet with news media representatives to hear their "concerns" and report back to him. He sent his old sin eater for a confab with the very targets of the abusive surveillance. Such an inquiry offers no reason to trust its conclusions.

The feeble response was the ultimate proof that these are Obama's sins despite his effort to feign ignorance. It did not matter that Holder is the sin eater who has lost his stomach or that such mortal sins are not so easily digested. Indeed, these sins should be fatal for any attorney general.

Jonathan Turley, the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University, is a member of USA TODAY's Board of Contributors.