It does look pretty bad. Ultimately if their tax affairs are in order then these organisations have little to fear from these audits, but nevertheless you don't like to think that state agencies are specifically targeting political opponents.

It strikes me that the American system is open to this kind of abuse. On the one hand you have a presumption that agencies like the IRS should act impartially but on the other hand you have a spoils system where senior appointments are all controlled by the governing party. There's an obvious tension between the two. Most of the time it's not likely to be a problem when you get down to the lower level operations like these, but where you have a situation where the two parties in America are in a state of almost total war with each other, like you have at the moment, then the spoils system is almost certain to generate abuses at every level of government.

Are organisations that get religious tax exemptions allowed to also fund political campaigns, clearly asking people to vote for or against something?

The rest, well, you will have patronage and a system of partisanship all the way up.

bbauska wrote:Do you think the IRS scandal is an abuse of power by a government agency?

I don't know. Using 'scandal' in the question is leading, by the way. It sounds bad, but of course there could be some of these groups complaining who did merit an audit. I'm not sure how an audit is flagged, but it could be based on problems with returns or being the subject of a report (we do want to encourage reporting of potential fraud, don't we?).

Do you think the AP phone records is an abuse of the DOJ?

Again I don't know. It appears that there is a tension here between press freedom and the need to identify and deal with leaks of sensitive information. A leak concerning what security services know can be very damaging, if it tips off your enemies that their or how their plans are discovered. Again, it looks bad, as represented in the (no doubt agenda-free) quotes supplied by DF, but it's not that simple. If, for example, the editors of a Soviet-sympathetic media outlet were suspected of having access to -and publishing- sensitive information during the cold war, would we expect no-one to investigate with the use of taps? If it were Al Jazeera, Press TV or RT, would we apply the same standards?

(Please note I have not said it was presidential abuse. That is not proven, and inadmissible)

You are not DF, who started off the thread with a clear implication that Obama is personally responsible for all of these.

What is interesting is that we have the pre-emptive "you would be up in arms if it was Bush" line. That seems to me to be tantamount to abandoning any moral high ground, conceding before anyone has even argued it that this is really framed as part of a Democrat v Republican partisan paradigm, which is adversarial rather than interrogative. If you spent 2000-8 railing against Bush Derangement Syndrome, spending 2008-16 caught up in Obama Derangement Syndrom looks a bit silly.

Oh, and in the spirit of pre-emptive argument, I have never seen Obama as perfect, or argued as such, and I don't recall seeing that from anyone here (perhaps DH on one of his rambles) so 'messiah' jibes are inappropriate. It's a shame the old site is gone, as I could point you to the words I wrote back in November 2008 comparing him to the unfulfillable hope of Tony Blair.

By the way, Tom, on the 'deafening silence of the left' (perhaps if the right didn't keep shouting to eah other they'd be less deafened and hear what others are saying), that notable conservative lobby group the ACLU is complaining about the AP investigation. Sen Pat Leahy (Dem), chair of the judiciary committee has also said he finds the allegations troubling and wants to no more.

danivon wrote:Are organisations that get religious tax exemptions allowed to also fund political campaigns, clearly asking people to vote for or against something?

Not conservative churches.

I've noted before, there is a massive double standard here. Liberal churches often have full-blown political rallies in them--during their services.

A sliver of conservative churches had one Sunday last fall when they held a day of protests on social issues, proclaiming what the Bible says about them from the pulpit and encouraging votes along those lines. Most churches do the former and not the latter.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:Are organisations that get religious tax exemptions allowed to also fund political campaigns, clearly asking people to vote for or against something?

Not conservative churches.

I've noted before, there is a massive double standard here. Liberal churches often have full-blown political rallies in them--during their services.

A sliver of conservative churches had one Sunday last fall when they held a day of protests on social issues, proclaiming what the Bible says about them from the pulpit and encouraging votes along those lines. Most churches do the former and not the latter.

Apart from the assertion that no 'conservative' church can or does (which is it you are saying?) this, it's not really an answer.

By the rules of their tax exempt status, should they be allowed to? If they do, and if it were a liberal church, do you think they were abusing their status?

And I'm not sure if the BGEA is a 'church', although it is a 501(c)(3) organisation. As far as I can tell, a group (Freedom From Religion Foundation) filed an official complaint to the IRS the political activities of the BGEA. While that complaint may have been motivated itself by a political agenda, it would be remiss of the IRS to completely ignore it. So at least a perfunctory investigation seems to be appropriate, and without more compelling evidence (from someone not as biased as Franklin Graham, who runs the BGEA due to his father's infirmity) before it can be lumped in with the accusations about Tea Party and 'partriot' geroups.

Still, I do recall a plethora of different strands of Tea Party groups setting themselves up across the US at the same time, some were rival, some were offshoots of others, I daresay there were places where accusations of misdeeds were made between and within such groups (grassroots organisations sometimes get hijacked or used, or people in them are amateurs and may not know what rules they have to follow), let alone any by opponents. That a lot of these groups were audited is a concern, but without knowing what the justification was in each case, or across a decent representative sample, you cam't yet establish a slam-dunk argument of political bias in the IRS. But can we know - are the IRS allowed to, for example, disclose who has filed a complaint and the contents of it before investigations are complete?

danivon wrote:

bbauska wrote:Do you think the IRS scandal is an abuse of power by a government agency?

I don't know. Using 'scandal' in the question is leading, by the way. It sounds bad, but of course there could be some of these groups complaining who did merit an audit. I'm not sure how an audit is flagged, but it could be based on problems with returns or being the subject of a report (we do want to encourage reporting of potential fraud, don't we?).

I think it's time for some Jon Stewart.

In the video, the head of the IRS says Tea Party and "Patriot" groups were selected by their NAMES ALONE!

Do you think the AP phone records is an abuse of the DOJ?

Again I don't know. It appears that there is a tension here between press freedom and the need to identify and deal with leaks of sensitive information. A leak concerning what security services know can be very damaging, if it tips off your enemies that their or how their plans are discovered. Again, it looks bad, as represented in the (no doubt agenda-free) quotes supplied by DF, but it's not that simple. If, for example, the editors of a Soviet-sympathetic media outlet were suspected of having access to -and publishing- sensitive information during the cold war, would we expect no-one to investigate with the use of taps? If it were Al Jazeera, Press TV or RT, would we apply the same standards?

I actually agree with you.

However, the burden is on Holder and the Justice Department to prove the need to violate the First Amendment. Considering he is saying he did not personally authorize this, in contradiction of the letter of the law, is not an encouraging sign. It is a very broad "search" and I think there is reason, beyond politics, to be concerned.

(Please note I have not said it was presidential abuse. That is not proven, and inadmissible)

You are not DF, who started off the thread with a clear implication that Obama is personally responsible for all of these.

Actually, what I said was, "I think I said two years ago he was the Democrats' Nixon." In other words, I think he is a megalomaniac willing to use the levers of government to punish his enemies.

If I'm wrong, that's not so great either. That just means he's incompetent.

However, he joked during the campaign about using the IRS like this.

His campaign put out a list of "bad people"--8 folks who supported Romney with big money. At least one of those people immediately got the roto-rooter treatment from the government.

Could it be a coincidence?

Maybe.

By the way, Tom, on the 'deafening silence of the left' (perhaps if the right didn't keep shouting to eah other they'd be less deafened and hear what others are saying), that notable conservative lobby group the ACLU is complaining about the AP investigation. Sen Pat Leahy (Dem), chair of the judiciary committee has also said he finds the allegations troubling and wants to no more.

And, unless Obama starts showing some genuine leadership on these issues, there will be more Democrats leaping off the sinking ship.

danivon wrote:By the rules of their tax exempt status, should they be allowed to? If they do, and if it were a liberal church, do you think they were abusing their status?

I think all churches should be permitted to exercise free speech. Churches are voluntary organizations. If one does not like what the church is doing/teaching, one may leave.

It is typically liberals who insist on the separation of church and politics.

The big problem here is the IRS already admitted guilt, they already admitted to targeting any tea party groups, this was simply illegal and immoral. All these "what if's" don't really matter, they already admitted their guilt! This was nothing but a political ploy and Sass might be right about the whole system being ripe for such a thing to happen, but it has not happened before. I also am not blaming Obama in particular but the Democratic leadership is clearly getting out of control and the outrage is growing by the day!

The First Amendment protects free expression of the press, but does not mean that press organisations are exempt from investigations concerning criminal acts. The press is 'free' just as any person is, but all are subject to laws as well. And yes, the press can claim mitigation for breaching laws if they can establish a public interest defence, but that would still be invoked after an investigation, not to block it.

I agree there is a 'chill factor' if powers are used to monitor press activity. However, that does not necessarily mean the First Amendment is being breached. If there is a leak in security and it has a conduit through the press, that is also serious. If it poses a threat to national security, the the government has the power (indeed, duty) to investigate lawfully. That is also in the Constitution, as part of the domestic Tranquility, common defence and general Welfare clauses.

Like the Senator mentioned above, I see the concern and agree the Administration has some explainin to do. Unlike you, I'm not going to prejudge the outcome.

tom

The big problem here is the IRS already admitted guilt, they already admitted to targeting any tea party groups, this was simply illegal and immoral

I can understand the logic behind the targeting. Citizens United opended the flood gates for PACs and a lot of organizations on the right are both anti-government and really anti tax.
It isn't a great leap to conclude that they might be organizations that conspire to avoid paying taxes illegally.
But that is profiling.
Funny that for the very organizations being profiled in this case profiling is a bad idea for the IRS but a good idea for the FBI investigating groups that might be prone to incubation of terrorists... (You know, mosques.)

In either case, if it leads to harrassment .... it stinks. But its still hard to argue with the concept of looking for fire, where there seems to be heat. Ot at least potential for heat.

Doctor Fate wrote:I think all churches should be permitted to exercise free speech. Churches are voluntary organizations. If one does not like what the church is doing/teaching, one may leave.

Beside the point. The question is not whether churches or other 501(c)(3) organisations can say what they want, it is whether doing so alters their entitlement to tax breaks. Basically, you can leave a church you are in, but should you have to subsidise one you are not in if it is campaigning?

It is typically liberals who insist on the separation of church and politics.

There is some Constitutional basis for that. Certainly for separation of church and state.

Tom:

This was nothing but a political ploy and Sass might be right about the whole system being ripe for such a thing to happen, but it has not happened before.

an interesting OP ED from today's WSJ:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 30836.html

As David Burnham noted in "A Law Unto Itself: The IRS and the Abuse of Power" (1990), "In almost every administration since the IRS's inception the information and power of the tax agency have been mobilized for explicitly political purposes."
...
President John F. Kennedy raised the political exploitation of the IRS to an art form. Shortly after capturing the presidency, JFK denounced "the discordant voices of extremism" and derided people who distrust their leaders—President Obama didn't invent that particular rhetorical line. Shortly thereafter, JFK signaled at a news conference that he expected the IRS to be vigilant in policing the tax-exempt status of questionable (read: conservative) organizations.

Within a few days of Kennedy's remarks, the IRS launched the Ideological Organizations Audit Project. It targeted right-leaning groups, including the Christian Anti-Communist Crusade, the American Enterprise Institute and the Foundation for Economic Education. Kennedy also used the IRS to strong-arm companies into complying with "voluntary" price controls. Steel executives who defied the administration were singled out for audits.

The Op Ed also talks about FDR, Nixon, and Clinton, as well as powerful Congressmen from both parties.

Ray Jay wrote:The Op Ed also talks about FDR, Nixon, and Clinton, as well as powerful Congressmen from both parties.

I have to say that when I saw Tom's assertion I was a little sceptical. Before 1913, tax collectors werr appointed by patronage, rather than being professionally hired. It would be naive in the extreme to suggest that a patronage system of apppointment would not have led to all kinds of bias in who got chased, based not only on politics but on personal favour.

I would also be very unsurprised if the IRS had been giving suspected supporters of Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union a bit of extra scrutiny.

To claim that bad things only started to happen in 2008 when there is abundant evidence that they did seems to be a clear symptom of the ol' ODS.

The AP's phone records are even more disturbing to me. I'm surprised that the Dr brings it up as a problem, because, after all, it's done in the fight against global terror. But in response to that awful overreach, I just ran across this:

http://allthingsd.com/20130515/the-new-yorker-launches-strongbox-an-open-source-anonymous-tip-tool-built-by-aaron-swartz/

Probably even better than hanging out in front of the Conde Nast or NYTs building waiting to accost a reporter because there's no cameras.

danivon wrote:The First Amendment protects free expression of the press, but does not mean that press organisations are exempt from investigations concerning criminal acts. The press is 'free' just as any person is, but all are subject to laws as well. And yes, the press can claim mitigation for breaching laws if they can establish a public interest defence, but that would still be invoked after an investigation, not to block it.

I think the major question is the scope of it. It seems terribly broad.

And, Holder's explanation as to why he did not personally sign off on it (per the law) seems a bit weak. He recused himself because of possible conflict of interest, then put his deputy in charge?

Huh?

If he was really concerned about a conflict, he should have appointed someone outside the Department of Justice.