Tag: IRS scandal

Categories
insider corruption

Keep Targeting the IRS

We’re still unraveling the IRS’s prolific crimes.

I mean, those pertaining to its ideological targeting of conservative applicants for non-profit status.

I’m satisfied that the various individuals and organizations suing the IRS or publishing commentaries on this still-unfolding scandal (Day 552 now) will keep on keepin’ on. I’m a little worried, though, about Congress.

Granting that congressional investigators have been reasonably if imperfectly diligent, my hope is that they’ll prove even tougher in the coming session.

Some chairman must step down soon because of the GOP’s term limits on committee chairs; these include Darrell Issa of the Oversight and Reform Committee. TaxProf Blog’s Paul Caron, scandal tracker par excellence, says Issa’s successor should be one who “has done as much as anyone to shine a light on IRS abuse of the President’s philosophical opponents, both in hearings and behind the scenes.”

The man he means is Representative Jim Jordan. Long before we ever heard of pivotal IRS malefactor Lois Lerner, Jordan had been “seeking answers from the IRS’s tax-exempt organizations chief on political targeting allegations.”

Indeed, Cleta Mitchell, a lawyer for victims of the IRS, believes that without Jordan there would have been no Treasury investigation to get the ball rolling “and no public admission that, indeed, conservative groups were being subjected to unprecedented scrutiny and mistreatment.” (Plus, see the congressman’s recent press release lamenting a dismissal of charges against the IRS.)

I’m convinced; let’s have Jordan. And let’s pursue this investigation to the bitter end.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
crime and punishment insider corruption national politics & policies

Assault on Political Speech, Deferred

It’s like jumping from ice floe to ice floe while being shot at. Great if you can reach the next slab of ice while the shooters pause to reload. But then what?

Having been caught targeting right-leaning applicants for tax-exempt status, the IRS decided to clear up the “ambiguity” in rules for tax-exempt organizations that had “led” to this “confusion.” The solution, they decided, should be to make it impossible for a tax-exempt organization that ever mentions political candidates or elections to avoid getting into trouble with the IRS.

No. What Americans needed post-scandal is what we have needed all along: more restrictions on the government, not on our freedom to speak out.

Persons of all political stripes saw the danger in the Draconian new rules IRS was proposing, resulting in an unprecedented 150,000 public comments — mostly negative. So the IRS is backing down for now . . . but says it will try again.

Not everyone is happy about the reprieve.

“This delay is deeply disappointing and a real setback for democracy[!!] and faith in government[!!!],” says Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer. “The only hope we have is when the IRS goes back, they don’t succumb to any form of political pressure and enact a very tough rule that will equally curtail liberal and conservative groups.”

“Only hope” for what? Equal-opportunity repression?

It bodes ill that any major political figure could be so open about wishing to stomp on our freedom of speech.

The battle for our basic rights is far from over.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
insider corruption

IRS Clarifies Targeting: Yes

The Internal Revenue Service has proposed new regulations to restrict the eligibility of nonprofit organizations applying for tax-exempt status.

Per the proposal, nonprofits tainted by certain kinds of political activity will be ineligible, since those kinds ipso facto don’t do anybody any good. Forget that “social welfare” and “political” issues might overlap.

Association with a candidate or political party, communicating with or supporting or even mentioning the name of a candidate for office too close to a general election, even voter registration drives would be disqualifying.

Let’s say a nonprofit bookstore promotes a select set of books online. The author of several of those volumes runs for office. Would the store’s tax-exempt status now be in jeopardy unless it scrubbed reviews of his books? Well, according to the IRS’s own explanation, “content previously posted by an organization on its Web site that clearly identifies a candidate and remains on the Web site during the specified pre-election period would be treated as candidate-related political activity.”

Any chance that the strict new rules will be varyingly interpreted and selectively enforced?

Well, yeah, if the IRS’s decades-long track record, especially the recent targeting of Tea Party and conservative groups applying for tax-exempt status, is any indication.

The agency is soliciting your comments on the proposed new tourniquet on political speech (here). The deadline is February 27. Proceed with pith if not vinegar.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
insider corruption

Scandal Not Going Away

We’re past Day 195 of the IRS scandal.

I mean the one about how IRS agents processing applications for tax-exempt status gave an especially hard time to Tea Party and similar groups, asking endless intrusive questions and delaying legitimate tax-exempt status for years or never granting it at all.

The botches and disillusionment occasioned by the Obamacare non-rollout have pushed other Obama scandals off the front pages. But as Jay Sekulow of the American Center for Law and Justice argues, the IRS scandal won’t be fading from memory any time soon.

First, details of the agency’s wrongdoing, initially said to be confined to a few renegade overworked Cincinnati agents, are still being revealed and at higher levels.

Second, the IRS is still being sued by Sekulow’s organization.

Third, the scandal reminds us of how mean, incompetent, and corrupt the IRS is in so many ways.

Fourth, the fish rots from the head. Even if President Obama didn’t call IRS and say, “Start targeting Tea Partier types,” his many condemnations of such groups all but explicitly invited the targeting.

Fifth, Obamacare and the IRS are joined at the hip, with the rogue agency charged with enforcing Obama-mandates. This is like treating food poisoning by clubbing the sufferer’s kneecaps. If you’re the guy getting your knees smashed, are you going to forget about the role and nature of the perpetrator any time soon?

Well, there are millions of people now with bruised kneecaps.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
insider corruption

Incumbency Protection Racket

While discussing the latest IRS scandal — the one about how the IRS has been (is still) stacking the deck against non-lefty nonprofits seeking tax-exempt status — the Wall Street Journal’s James Taranto mentions another kind of deck-stacking: campaign financial regulation.

Seems that Hillary Clinton, still running for president, is using her serially disgraced husband’s 501(c)3 foundation as a launching pad or financial resource for political operations. Taranto wonders whether the IRS “would investigate the Clinton Foundation for evidently acting as a front group for a political campaign” — quickly adding that his question is “facetious” given the fact that “the Obama IRS only goes after little guys.”

Suppose, however, that there were in fact an inquiry into the relationship between Hillary’s incipient campaign and the foundation? The point Taranto wants to make is that whether we’re talking about the IRS code or campaign finance regulation, it’s easier to comply with “complex and burdensome regulations on political speech” when you have resources to splurge on lawyers who can ensure that you’re obeying the letter of the law. Thus, the regulations “give incumbents a huge advantage over upstart challengers.”

Though hardly the only problem with CFR, this bedrock truth about the regulatory regime undermines the claim that such regulations serve only to “level the playing field.” What they really do is make it impossible for an unknown, un-wealthy but otherwise viable challenger to quickly “level the playing field” by accepting large checks from donors convinced of the challenger’s electability and election-worthiness.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.