Something I’ve broached myself, but seeing as how I’m a fringe conspiracy nut, I’ll reference an organization that is a hair less Visigothy than am I. NetRightDaily:
“Political campaign intervention in 501(c)(4)s was not something we have previously dealt with very much.”
That is how Holly Paz, in 2010 the manager of the Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS) Exempt Organizations technical office, based in Washington, D.C., described to congressional investigators her office’s lack of experience dealing with political cases for 501(c)(4) tax-exempt organizations.
501(c)(4)s are the groups that are at the heart of the IRS scandal targeting tea party and other organizations applying for tax-exempt status for additional scrutiny because they purportedly indicated they would engage in political activity.
Regulations allow 501(c)(4)s to engage in political activity — i.e. electioneering for or against candidates for public office — so long as it does not constitute a majority of their activities.
But the tea party targeting is just one part of the overall scandal.
According to the Treasury Inspector General report, in addition to 96 “tea party,” “9/12,” and “patriots” groups, there were 202 other organizations that were also subjected to special scrutiny — apparently simply because they indicated they might act politically, too.
But why did the agency suddenly decide to start scrutinizing 501(c)(4)s in the first place? Based on all the facts, persecuting organizations because they might lawfully exercise their First Amendment rights was an egregious case of viewpoint discrimination.
Paz stated that the trouble started in Feb. 2010 when “a case was identified where there was potential for political campaign activity, and that was when they reached out to Washington and the case was transferred to Washington.”
Paz’s explanation does seemingly match the criteria used in 2010 agency revenue procedures for identifying special cases: “EO Determinations will refer to EO Technical those applications that present issues which are not specifically covered by statute or regulations, or by a ruling, opinion, or court decision published in the Internal Revenue Bulletin.”
Then, if the Washington, D.C.-based technical office agrees, it can create “centralized control of designated categories of cases.”
But there’s a caveat. As Paz acknowledged, “501(c)(4) organizations can engage in some amount of political campaign intervention.” It begs the question. Since groups with this tax status are legally allowed to act politically by statute and regulation, then why would their applications have been held up at all?
In short, why didn’t Paz’s Washington, D.C.-based office advise the determinations office in Cincinnati of the law, and simply move on?
When Paz received the Feb. 2010 application, she forwarded it to agency tax specialist and attorney Carter Hull, who developed many of the invasive follow-up questions that attempted to probe just how political groups intended to be. Hull is now retiring.
Did Hull singularly come up with the idea of centralizing the (c)(4) cases all on his own? Did he receive guidance from a higher-up? If not, then why did he do it?
A prime suspect might be the Citizens United v. FEC Supreme Court ruling — which allowed non-profit organizations to make independent expenditures in favor or against candidates for elected office.
Within days of the ruling, President Barack Obama was trashing the Supreme Court in his State of the Union Address, saying “last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections.”
And within a month, groups were being targeted by the IRS for engaging in political activities.
Hull, an attorney, would have been well aware of the implications of the Supreme Court ruling. Did he receive legal or other agency guidance that political cases needed to be targeted in light of the Citizens United ruling? Did he issue any such guidance?
Because, in light of the ruling — which allowed Citizens United, a 501(c)(4) organization, to engage in electioneering — the agency’s decision to shut down 501(c)(4) political speech and independent expenditures was inexplicable.
Unless it was an explicit attempt to defy the Supreme Court’s ruling.
Pethokoukis: The asterisk president
Washington Free Beacon: Constitutional Amendment Would Gut Rights for Organizations
WSJ, Niall Ferguson: The Regulated States of America
It was an attempt to defy the Supreme Court Citizens United ruling; as it pertains to conservatives.
The Koch brothers and Romney donors? Evil.
Soros and OFA? Beautiful
It is the ultimate in triangulation.
The law is indeed being honored… for them. Liberals have no conscience for those who honestly disagree. There is no place anymore for frank dialogue that deviates from the liberal narrative. After all, the evidence is all gathered, all of the elites from academia and the ruling class agree on discovered TRUTH and anyone against truth and righteousness must be shunned and thwarted by all means… like as if they were sinners in the hands of an angry God*
The left is dishonest about Citizens United.
Unions are people because they reliably have tax payer funded government employees collect the automatically deducted union dues, electronically transfer it to the union HQ where the union bosses first treat themselves like the royalty they are and then they donate the rest to liberals who they can own. Hence we see public employees getting raises and ever larger benefit plans throughout the recession.
Politicians bought and paid for by collectives of humans spurred on only by their greedy self interest.
Corporations are not people unless they are filled with liberal people, in which case they are OK
* (really not that harsh of a sermon if you read the whole thing… great title though)
My favorite part of that idiocy:
You’re a couple hundred years late, halfwits.
If only natural persons have constitutional rights, what does that mean for the Unicorn Prince?
out of a sense of political panic
I think it’s less likely panic than stepping up their game, as planned.
They’re still sitting in the catbird seat, with the levers of government power in their hands, and we poor shlubs with nothing but placards and the occasional vote.
Excellent post by Volokh on that Tester/Murphy amendment.
So, given this set of arugments, if the SCOTUS strikes down Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, exactly which agencies will be targeting which group of citizens ?
The Tester/Murphy amendment is a prescription for corporate chaos.
Centuries of corporate law and precedents would be either obliterated or put into question if Tester?Murphy were enacted.
The ripple effect could go virtually everywhere, including into the 401(k)-s of millions of unsuspecting Americans.
The Tester/Murphy amendment is a prescription for corporate chaos.
Yes, but that’s not how they’ll advertise it. Besides, by the time they’re done
inflictingimplementing ObamaCare, there won’t be many corporations left to harass anyways.“Tutto nello Stato, niente al di fuori dello Stato, nulla contro lo Stato!”
OWS reaches the Senate. What a country.
Union-tied group slips IRS scrutiny
The great thing about being marginalized/outcast is that one can move to a default position of assuming everyone is an enemy and work forward from there.
Tends to simplify things.
SW,
Some of his “contrarian” readers tied themselves into excruciating knots trying to defend it, though. Heh.
nr,
:: This has been your “No Shit, Sherlock” moment of the day. ::
Quite, Blake. I feel unshackled now that my suspicions have been confirmed.
leigh, sadly enough, probably around 25% of the population is our sworn enemy. They are people that cannot be reasoned with because no matter what evidence is put forth, they will blindly cling to their ideology. These kinds of people will gladly see people like you and I lined up against a wall and shot.
Lucky for us they generally lack firearms themselves.
Crank, they get other people to do the shooting for them. Enough psychopaths are more than willing to work for them.
I think that I have gone from “fear and loathing” to just plain “loathing.”
[…] but this needs to be put differently. One of these White House correspondents has to rephrase what Jeff's been arguing for years: "When you say these things, you claim that what we mean doesn't matter. All that matters […]