More Details Show IRS Targeted Groups Critical Of How The Government Was Run
from the ouch dept
Late on Friday (the time when people try to break bad news to avoid a big news cycle) the IRS admitted that the office that scrutinizes non-profit/tax exempt status of organizations had acted politically in targeting groups that had "tea party" or "patriot" in their names. Over the weekend, more details have been revealed showing that they further targeted groups that criticized how the government is being run including so-called "social welfare" groups. In other words: if you want to improve our government, the IRS might target you for a burdensome audit. As someone who regularly criticizes our government because I want it to act better, this is absolutely horrifying. I know that this issue has already descended for some into a "left" vs. "right" political battle, but this is an issue that everyone should be aghast about. While the full report hasn't been released yet (and, in fact, there are already accusations that the IRS has leaked parts to try to contain the fallout), some of the details are astounding:The documents, obtained by The Washington Post from a congressional aide with knowledge of the findings, show that the IRS field office in charge of evaluating applications for tax-exempt status decided to focus on groups making statements that “criticize how the country is being run” and those that were involved in educating Americans “on the Constitution and Bill of Rights.”Educating people about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights gets extra scrutiny by the IRS? Isn't that the kind of thing that we should be encouraging?
Are there groups that abuse the non-profit status? Probably. But targeting them based on their viewpoints goes way beyond what's allowed or should be seen as even remotely reasonable. As some have pointed out, politicizing the IRS was part of the impeachment articles against Nixon.
Is it so much to ask for a government that actually respects the Constitution? Or does simply asking for that make you a target?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: advocacy, constitution, irs, non-profit, patriots, political targeting, tax exempt, tea party
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Republic
When we've lost our government, that was supposed to represent the needs of the people, supported by the people, and working for the people, it's almost gut wrenching when people recognize that all people on the political spectrum are the target based on a fear of the public mobilizing against the government.
I think the chips are adding up to something similar to the turn of the last century though...
The people might get fed up with the two major parties, and push for their government to go in a more progressive direction, without the lobbying, the backroom dealings, and without so much power given to the government over the needs of the people.
Maybe then we can make changes so that our government is more of a democratic republic instead of the aristocracy that has been protected for the past 40 years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It seems
What the IRS was doing was not nice, but perhaps not that stupid. It seems many of these groups are funded in strange ways, with the very rich playing games to avoid paying taxes while getting a tax exempt group to front for them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It seems
next you'll say something outrageous like elected governments can be expected to prosecute groups who openly advocate overthrowing them and/or widespread violations of law!
what is this, Stalinist Russia? Citizens must be free to break and twist every law and principle on which a country depends without threat of arrest, prosecution, trial, or punishment. Otherwise, we have no freedom.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It seems
ftfy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It seems
While there's outrage on this, the actions of a lot of Tea Party groups have been questionable since 2007 for quite some time.
elected governments can be expected to prosecute groups who openly advocate overthrowing them and/or widespread violations of law!
Heh, if the government represented the p
Citizens must be free to break and twist every law and principle on which a country depends without threat of arrest, prosecution, trial, or punishment. Otherwise, we have no freedom.
Wrong. Citizens decide on laws and who represents them in government. If you want a democratic republic, you have to fight for it. Best option is to go out and form up with others to explain the need for a better government through better representation and more political parties.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: It seems
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: It seems
Who the hell are they to decide who's opinions are questionable? Since when did the IRS become one political party's hound dog to sick on anyone that dares question government? The very fact that they target groups that educate others about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights should be considered a serious red flag. The DHS has been acting very similar, demonizing political dissidents, gun owners, veterans, "angry parents," and whoever else they wish as supposed 'potential terrorists.' Again, who are they to decide?
"Wrong. Citizens decide on laws and who represents them in government. If you want a democratic republic, you have to fight for it. Best option is to go out and form up with others to explain the need for a better government through better representation and more political parties."
What do you mean, "you have to fight for it"? Lest I'm mistaken, we already fought for our independence. Oh, and a lot of good it does to form another political party. Tell me, when was the last time there was a truly independent politician that got in the oval office? The two-party power structure (actually, it's one but we won't get into that) is intent on maintaining its firm grip over all things political in nature.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: It seems
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It seems
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It seems
By all means, don't mention how the target was broader than Tea Partiers or how dark money stays in politics.
Let's just believe this is all about the right wing and not their own past behavior...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It seems
It's a valid point to mention that the "Tea Party" and "Patriot" buzzwords were suspect at the time, note, this was before the party came into existence as we know it now.
This whole "partisan" thing has been blown WAY out of proportion. The original article that I read said something along the lines of 300 organization applications (for non-profit status) had been put aside for additional scrutiny, and of those something like 40% had "Tea Party" or "Patriot" in their applications.
It's ABSOLUTELY within the IRS's jurisdiction to investigate a company whom they suspect is applying for non-profit status illegitimately, and frankly I'm disappointed with Mike for not looking into this more critically before just accepting the "This is chilling" line that I've seen in a multitude of headlines already.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It seems
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It seems
And I suppose you have evidence of this? Come on, man...at least TRY to be objective.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It seems
> the biggest abusers of the system
Riiighhht... let's pretend there aren't just as many left-wing political action groups out there, backed by big Soros-type money, trying to influence politics in the U.S.
If the IRS were looking into such groups of *all* political persuasions, that would be fine. But they weren't. Hence the shitstorm.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It seems
Name them.
If the IRS were looking into such groups of *all* political persuasions, that would be fine.
And how many "left wing" politicos are using money to abuse tax exempt status?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It seems
http://mediamattersaction.org/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It seems
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It seems
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It seems
Bush’s use of the IRS was but one part of that larger assault. As my Salon colleague Alex Seitz-Wald notes today in greater detail, in 2005, Bush’s IRS began what became an extensive two-year investigation into a Pasadena church after an orator dared to speak out against President Bush’s Iraq War. Not coincidentally, the Los Angeles Times reports that the church targeted just so happened to be “one of Southern California’s largest and most liberal congregations.” That IRS church audit came a year after it launched a near-identical attack on the NAACP after the civil rights organization criticized various Bush administration policies.
But by all means, let's go back here:
FDR focused his efforts on derailing a slew of perceived opponents, including Andrew Mellon, who was the secretary of Treasury under President Hoover. In the Roosevelt administration, Mellon was subjected to intense income tax audits, and endured a two-year civil action lawsuit, which was referred to at the time as the "Mellon Tax Trial."
This is the same Andrew Mellon that wanted farmers to be purged.
Few would peg civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. as a felon. But in February 1960, the Alabama grand jury issued an arrest warrant for King on two counts of felony perjury for fraudulent tax returns in 1956 and 1960.
Yep, that Martin Luther King.
Labor organizer Victor Reuther urged Robert F. Kennedy, who was attorney general at the time, to suppress the rise of conservative groups around the country in a memorandum addressed to the entire Kennedy administration and "certain sympathetic senators and congressmen." The 24-page memo contained various plans, including stifling the flow of funds to conservative organizations by way of IRS investigations in hopes of finding a reason to remove the groups' tax exemption status.
One of the major targets was the John Birch Society as described by the late historian John A. Andrew III in his book "Power to Destroy: The Political Uses of the IRS from Kennedy to Nixon.
Hmmm... Liberals and conservatives as defined by their political ideology.
So your "exception" doesn't seem so exceptional.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It seems
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It seems
Wut?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It seems
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It seems
It's kind of ridiculous because it means you have no argument other than one confirmed by bias.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It seems
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It seems
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hmmm
Not that it matters. The US Government is now the largest corrupt regime in the world. They know it, and they know we know it. Which is why the increasingly heavy-handed communist tactics from our government.
Face it. Freedom and Democracy are 100% dead in America.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hmmm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
American Experiment: The Results Are In
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This does not matter to me...
Therefore, the moral of the story is NOT to be critical of how the government is run and you will be OK... until what you do is contrary too what the government stance is... but don't worry about that unless you are a terrorist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This does not matter to me...
Is it illegal for even the president to ask for a group to be investigated for a crime and reporting them to the IRS due to suspicions they are committing fraud? I believe both sides have used the IRS in this way before. Or maybe it is the dems using the IRS to attack the tea party so that the republicans are seen helping them when the majority of the population know they are crazy people.
Political games are sometimes difficult to Analyze as some targets they want to achieve with their actions are only understood when the flames settle down.
I don't see the big worry here, anyone can report someone else to the IRS, that is the way it was set up so that neighbors could rat out each other, not a nice environment to live in but taxes are the most important thing in America to fund the massive government and super massive army.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This does not matter to me...
You're an idiot. This country wouldn't be here if it weren't for those types of "crazy". Did you blame Boston on the Tea Party too?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This does not matter to me...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This does not matter to me...
Sure both parties do it. Yes it has been going on for ever. That doesn't make it right. It is a sad statement for our country and our government when our leaders stoop to such levels. It shows our government is little better than certain other governments around the world where people live in fear of voicing opposition to the leadership of their country.
It would be one thing for you or me to alert the IRS to investigate an organization (or individual). it is quite another for a person in power to do it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Timing fail
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And you can go on the no fly list too, no extra charge!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Welcome to socialism.
Just be glad you are not living under Stalin, or Mow, Pol Pot, or any of the other more progressive governments which did not steal just money but also stole lives too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Are you daft?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This article also has nothing to do with socialism
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Socialism - Democratic control of the means of production by the working class for the good of the community rather than capitalist profit.
Better yet...
Socialism - : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
Now does any of the bureacracy of the IRS sound like collective ownership to you?
No? Then your only target is to misguide people about a different economic system that you want to beat people over the head with as being bad.
So let's do a quick history lesson...
The US has had war for over 200 years of existence
In other words, the US as a country has never seen a decade without war.
We're either fighting someone or planning to fight as a warrior nation.
Hell, the US was created based on the genocide of Native Americans. It utilized cheap labor from workers because of the color of their skin.
And the US wanted Chinese and black people to fight during the railroads so they fought over jobs and wages while people like the Rockefellers exploited everyone.
You, do not even understand your own history and you think that bringing up this false notion of Socialism is going to protect your belief from scrutiny?
Sad. Please go look up a history book. It's disappointing when people make false assumptions about economics with nothing to back it up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods"
You can administrate through legislation and executive orders. Distribution is one of Obama's strong points. Divisiveness is another.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The US is and there are better ways to allocate resources, but that's a different argument for another day.
Your warring diatribe only shows that you hate capitalism.
BWAAAHAHAHA! So I'm supposed to cheerlead when people in positions of power abuse rights all over the world all in the name of capitalism?
Good job on a bad argument.
You can administrate through legislation and executive orders.
That has nothing to do with Socialism. Try again.
Distribution is one of Obama's strong points. Divisiveness is another.
Again, non sequitar. Focus on something that actually follows a coherent point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Nuances, my friend! Education is not the work of the devil, you know...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: LOL
Socialism - word to be used synonymously with communism, marxism, fascism, progressive, and/or liberal. Actual meaning is irrelevant, as these words inspire fear and motivate the sheeple.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: LOL
Choice - their choice
Freedom - coddled by the government
Democratic - unless we win, then anything goes
The real fear is coming from the left. Fear that "Right-wingers" are coming to get them with their guns and bible in hand. The media motivates these sheeple. They are not doers, they are whiners. Everything will be better when the gubment has us all under wing. Forget about the wire taps and the email, rendition (still here), expanded homeland security, on and on, somehow this time we can trust the feds. Sheeple indeed. Read any history book, please.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The IRS should be used to go after real crooks: The Rich.
But with this he slips in a mis-direction:
"Are there groups that abuse the non-profit status?" -- Mike answers "probably" as if small fish, but the real answer is ABSOLUTELY. Every damned tax-exempt "non-profit" FOUNDATION that The Rich use to spread their evil is an abuse. -- Those are simply tax shelters NOT charities; the money is still controlled by the founder or family, they get income from it and all expenses paid while doing "work" for the foundation, the always necessary whitewashing of evils with PR is better than free, PLUS the foundation keeps on doing evil after the founder dies, estate taxes are avoided forever. The IRS does NOT go after those, because the foundation owners OWN the IRS.
By the way, I'm with those who believe this is just smoke screen to take focus off elsewhere. -- Even Mike says it's a limited hangout ploy. We just don't exactly know for what.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The IRS should be used to go after real crooks: The Rich.
Same goes for the AP story since: The Rothschilds own AP (Rothschilds purchased Reuters in the 1800s and Reuters purchased AP a few decades ago), The criminal families indirectly own the Justice Department through blackmail, secret socities and traitors so this is a load of BS propaganda.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The IRS should be used to go after real crooks: The Rich.
> Reuters in the 1800s and Reuters purchased AP
> a few decades ago), The criminal families
> indirectly own the Justice Department through
> blackmail, secret socities and traitors so this
> is a load of BS propaganda.
Alex Jones, is that you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The IRS should be used to go after real crooks: The Rich.
Here's a newsflash. Some people who are rich are criminals, some people in the middle are criminals, some people who are poor are criminals. Blanket attacks on one group achieves nothing.
Get back in your box, please.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The IRS should be used to go after real crooks: The Rich.
There is an excellent talk on TED that completely debunks the hypothesis that "the rich" are job creators. The crux of the argument is that job creation is an expense and is the last resort of any business. In other words, reducing taxes on the wealthy does not spur job creation, but rather increases wealth which is not proportionately distributed into the economy. Consumers are the actual engine of growth. If demand rises then jobs need to be created to handle demand.
The point being, that "the rich" have historically allowed their greed to drive societies to the brink of implosion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The IRS should be used to go after real crooks: The Rich.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The IRS should be used to go after real crooks: The Rich.
lol ...
The current admin would be considered middle of the road republican if it weren't for the recent knee jerk move to the right, but in hindsight most of the past republican admins would be slammed today for being a bunch of lefties. Boy oh boy, that Reagan was such a socialist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The IRS should be used to go after real crooks: The Rich.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The IRS should be used to go after real crooks: The Rich.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The IRS should be used to go after real crooks: The Rich.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The IRS should be used to go after real crooks: The Rich.
Honestly...I don't get what's so hard to understand about the concept.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The IRS should be used to go after real crooks: The Rich.
Furthermore - you know that Kenneth Lay and Jeffrey Skilling were simply trying to grow their business and create jobs for all those less fortunate. Those that forced them to confess to committing crimes should be ashamed.
It is like the people selling over priced gold to paranoid senile retirees, knowing full well the bubble will burst ... they were only attempting to grow their business and create jobs for all us peons. Thank god for the job creators.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tax Code
Given that, it's not surprising that the IRS would focus on Tea Party groups. Imagine if you saw a sudden surge in non-profit applications under a section of the tax code that prohibits lobbying for or against specific candidates and that these groups are associated with movements were explicitly organized to protest the election of a political candidate that now happens to be President. That would raise all sorts of red flags!
That's not to say what the IRS did was legal or proper. But I'd chalk this up to overzealous enforcement of the tax code rather than any specific malicious or ideological intent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Tax Code
You're absolutely right, this was most likely a result of IRS agents trying to do their job (poorly), and not, as some espouse, a political conspiracy directed from the top.
That said, I'm personally outraged by this bias in the IRS, whatever its original intent. It's akin to racial profiling; though there may be a statistical correlation between the population and behavior (correlation, not causation, big difference), by no means does this make it acceptable to target said population in order to prevent the behavior, based on no other evidence.
Even if this isn't a conspiracy, the people responsible need to be fired. This sort of behavior is entirely unacceptable for any part of our government, and particularly for the IRS which is supposed to maintain political neutrality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Tax Code
Thanks Obama
/s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Tax Code
There are a whole series of 501(c) levels. I once helped a local chapter of a national association through a rewrite of their by-laws and constitution. Being located in the DC area at the time, one of our members knew a K Street tax attorney. That individual helped us put the right words in our documents to attain our goal status. We wound up with a better tax rating than the national organization. But, we also changed our purpose, and then followed up on that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Where are the states? Where is the oversight?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Thanks for asking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
TEA, used to stand for "Tax Enough Already" in the beginning.
Then the historian constitutionalists came in and referenced the historic Boston Tea Party movement in 1773.
Now, the tea party has become a unifying parole for people who "Are not satisfied with the current leadership of the republican party".
A 2011 study found that the tea party was more concerned about putting god in the white house than lowering taxes...
It has been called an astroturf movement several times recently which is probably correct since members are fleeing and most activities have extremely strong corporate backings.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The "Tea Party" covers a whole spectrum of small groups hoping to use the 501(c)(4) designation so their donors can remain anonymous (as much as you can with the DOJ misbehavior) and to get a break on their expenses. We push for stopping the government, both local and federal, from their massive spending and waste. DC is a huge boomtown and has been while the rest of the country struggles with recession. Now we have Obamacare, and the hiring of 15,000 new IRS agents to enforce it.
I wonder if you would be so quick to dismiss the wrongful, possibly unconstitutional actions of the IRS if their red flagged terms were "progress," "social justice," "labor," "minorities," "workers," or other favorite terms of the left?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Another moron. Keep watching "The View".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Obama=Putin
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Obama=Putin
Putin is Russian, Obama is not.
You have already failed on two parts of your equation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Obama=Putin
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: @ Marcel de Jong
He's turning out to be just like him (are u going to reduce the discussion to racial issues again?).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: @ Marcel de Jong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The IRS exists for three reasons
2. Keep the rich rich.
3. Keep the people in fear of government retribution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The IRS exists for three reasons
/s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Groups like that don't deserve tax exempt status, regardless of which party they're for. They make a complete mockery of charitable organizations, and could even cause the government to take away the tax exempt status from ALL charitable organizations if this keeps up.
Don't think that'll happen? California used to have a tax deduction for being clergy of any religion, until some websites like the church of the flying spaghetti monster started to 'ordain' anyone as a minister in their religion who paid them $20. California fought that as not being a valid clergy and valid religion (since almost all the people claiming the tax deduction were clergy in that 'church'), and lost because the government doesn't get to decide what a real religion is under the 1st amendment. So California repealed the tax deduction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
1.Thanks to these Tea Party/Far Right Extremists we have to live with their Baby........Citizens United.
Thanks to them Corporations are People.
2.I want to know just what these guys are doing.They were the ones who brought Big Money Hell on every one of the Citizens.
I do want to see them looked into.After what they pulled I say let them Complain.I do not care about their feelings.They are the ones who have attacked me in more than one way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
that would level the playing field
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FOIA
"Conservative groups seeking information from the Environmental Protection Agency have been routinely hindered by fees normally waived for media and watchdog groups, while fees for more than 90 percent of requests from green groups were waived, according to requests reviewed by the Conservative Enterprise Institute."
Really, using government extensions and groupthink has been the MO of the Obama Administration since Day 1. This "news" on the IRS and Benghazi has been known and reported for years; the only surprise was the AP's admission.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/article/2529609#.UZJpr5r5fMM.twitter
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
IRS targets Tea Party
I read it as: the IRS looks for trends, and the Tea Party VERY much want to mask who funds them - the best way is to get tax-exempt status, so all Tea Party groups tried.
The IRS saw this trend, and realizing the Tea Party was FAR more likely to try to get tax-exempt status than anyone else, targeted them - but only because they knew that was where they were most likely to find a problem, not political.
The Tea Party, and Republicans generally, see a "liberal plot". To me, a little stupid, but then, trying to get rid of the deficit without fairly taxing the 2% with 74% of the total wealth is even more stupid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]