Support NeoGAF

[cartoon_soldier]

http://www.boston.com/business/pers...was-broader/EouWCeb1D4IhdADJyJr5yO/story.html

An internal IRS document obtained by The Associated Press said that besides ‘‘tea party,’’ lists used by screeners to pick groups for close examination also included the terms ‘‘Israel,’’ ‘'Progressive’’ and ‘‘Occupy.’’ The document said an investigation into why specific terms were included was still underway.

Werfel said preliminary results of an examination he has conducted of his agency have so far found no indication of improper screening beyond the IRS offices that examines groups seeking tax-exempt status.

He said he believes there was ‘‘insufficient action’’ by IRS managers to prevent and disclose the problem involving the screening of certain groups, but has discovered no specific clues of misconduct.

So, it went on for longer than known and also included non-tea party groups.

 

[CharlieDigital]

http://www.boston.com/business/pers...was-broader/EouWCeb1D4IhdADJyJr5yO/story.html

So, it went on for longer than known and also included non-tea party groups.

In other words, they were doing a good job and protecting the taxpayers interests by making sure that only legitimate organizations could exempt themselves from taxes?

Imokaywiththat.gif

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

Wondering if Fox News will provide as much coverage on this new revelation as they did with the Tea Party.

 

[Wilsongt]

So essentially a nonscandal was a nonscandal.

Who'd have thunk?

 

[smokeandmirrors]

So much for the conservative persecution complex

 

[B-Dubs]

In other words, they were doing a good job and protecting the taxpayers interests by making sure that only legitimate organizations could exempt themselves from taxes?

Imokaywiththat.gif

Pretty much, turns out another scandal was nothing but hype. Who would have thought?

 

[Escape Goat]

So much for the conservative persecution complex

No, now there is just a conspiracy to alter facts by the Obama Administration.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I read it went even further with groups with occupy and israel.

Pretty much the IRS was targeting groups whose names gave the impression they were doing more than the law allowed.

 

[Half and half]

It must feel terrible to be one of those people who bought into this scandal.

All that wasted chicken littling.

 

[TheLaughingStock]

I thought a conservative made the decision to screen tea party applications? It became a non scandal at that point for me, but please correct if I'm wrong.

 

[The Technomancer]

In other words, they were doing a good job and protecting the taxpayers interests by making sure that only legitimate organizations could exempt themselves from taxes?

Imokaywiththat.gif

Ayup

 

[Metaphoreus]

http://www.boston.com/business/pers...was-broader/EouWCeb1D4IhdADJyJr5yO/story.html

So, it went on for longer than known and also included non-tea party groups.

To be sure, many of those of us who've been concerned about the IRS targeting wondered in the past why terms like "Progressive" and "Occupy" weren't treated as terms leading to further scrutiny. Our implication was that, if the IRS weren't motivated by partisan animus, they would have included terms associated with both the left and the right, and not just terms associated with the right. So, at first, this revelation appears to defuse the situation.

However, given what we already knew about groups with the word "Progressive" in their names, this revelation really only raises more questions. If "Progressive" was on the BOLO list just like "Tea Party," why was every single Tea Party application flagged and held up when only a fraction of "Progressive" groups were? To my mind, this information makes the situation look worse, not better. The IRS apparently recognized that "Tea Party" and "Progressive" are equally indicative of substantial campaign intervention (and I continue to maintain that neither is sufficiently indicative to alone justify further scrutiny), yet they only flagged "Tea Party" applications as a class.

So, yes, those of you who have always dismissed our concerns about the IRS may continue to do so, and you may pretend that this further justifies your dismissal. But for those of us who have considered this issue seriously, without partisan blinders on, this only raises more questions.

 

[Black Mamba]

To be sure, many of those of us who've been concerned about the IRS targeting wondered in the past why terms like "Progressive" and "Occupy" weren't treated as terms leading to further scrutiny. Our implication was that, if the IRS weren't motivated by partisan animus, they would have included terms associated with both the left and the right, and not just terms associated with the right. So, at first, this revelation appears to defuse the situation.

However, given what we already knew about groups with the word "Progressive" in their names, this revelation really only raises more questions. If "Progressive" was on the BOLO list just like "Tea Party," why was every single Tea Party application flagged and held up when only a fraction of "Progressive" groups were? To my mind, this information makes the situation look worse, not better. The IRS apparently recognized that "Tea Party" and "Progressive" are equally indicative of substantial campaign intervention (and I continue to maintain that neither is sufficiently indicative to alone justify further scrutiny), yet they only flagged "Tea Party" applications as a class.

So, yes, those of you who have always dismissed our concerns about the IRS may continue to do so, and you may pretend that this further justifies your dismissal. But for those of us who have considered this issue seriously, without partisan blinders on, this only raises more questions.

"Tea Party" did not exist prior to 2010. "Progressive" has existed for a long time.

Not all the progressives needed flagging because not all of them refer to Democrat parties.

The IRS already had experience with progressive.

 

[Suikoguy]

This was about 501c groups right?

 

[Link]

I read it went even further with groups with occupy and israel.

Pretty much the IRS was targeting groups whose names gave the impression they were doing more than the law allowed.

I'm still wondering why none of these groups were denied tax-exempt, non-profit status.

 

[The Technomancer]

I'm still wondering why none of these groups were denied tax-exempt, non-profit status.

Wait, really? Didn't read that. I find that hard to believe if so, or rather I find it hard to believe that all of those groups were actually benign.

 

[PhoenixDark]

To be sure, many of those of us who've been concerned about the IRS targeting wondered in the past why terms like "Progressive" and "Occupy" weren't treated as terms leading to further scrutiny. Our implication was that, if the IRS weren't motivated by partisan animus, they would have included terms associated with both the left and the right, and not just terms associated with the right. So, at first, this revelation appears to defuse the situation.

However, given what we already knew about groups with the word "Progressive" in their names, this revelation really only raises more questions. If "Progressive" was on the BOLO list just like "Tea Party," why was every single Tea Party application flagged and held up when only a fraction of "Progressive" groups were? To my mind, this information makes the situation look worse, not better. The IRS apparently recognized that "Tea Party" and "Progressive" are equally indicative of substantial campaign intervention (and I continue to maintain that neither is sufficiently indicative to alone justify further scrutiny), yet they only flagged "Tea Party" applications as a class.

So, yes, those of you who have always dismissed our concerns about the IRS may continue to do so, and you may pretend that this further justifies your dismissal. But for those of us who have considered this issue seriously, without partisan blinders on, this only raises more questions.

Keep digging that hole. Multiple liberal groups were rejected, as were multiple conservative groups. But overall we're talking about groups that were ultimately accepted having to fill out some extra paperwork.

The last week has killed what little remained of this "scandal" and even the republican minority leader of the Senate has admitted there's not much here.

 

[Link]

Wait, really? Didn't read that. I find that hard to believe if so, or rather I find it hard to believe that all of those groups were actually benign.

It was reported when the story originally broke, if I recall correctly.

 

[davepoobond]

I feel the need to be outraged. Who can I be angry at about this?

 

[Plinko]

Wondering if Fox News will provide as much coverage on this new revelation as they did with the Tea Party.

Here's your answer, tucked away in the middle of a bunch of small links:

"IRS Chief: Inappropriate screening was broad"

No mention of the real details.

THAT is the headline. LOL Fox News.

 

[Chumly]

To be sure, many of those of us who've been concerned about the IRS targeting wondered in the past why terms like "Progressive" and "Occupy" weren't treated as terms leading to further scrutiny. Our implication was that, if the IRS weren't motivated by partisan animus, they would have included terms associated with both the left and the right, and not just terms associated with the right. So, at first, this revelation appears to defuse the situation.

However, given what we already knew about groups with the word "Progressive" in their names, this revelation really only raises more questions. If "Progressive" was on the BOLO list just like "Tea Party," why was every single Tea Party application flagged and held up when only a fraction of "Progressive" groups were? To my mind, this information makes the situation look worse, not better. The IRS apparently recognized that "Tea Party" and "Progressive" are equally indicative of substantial campaign intervention (and I continue to maintain that neither is sufficiently indicative to alone justify further scrutiny), yet they only flagged "Tea Party" applications as a class.

So, yes, those of you who have always dismissed our concerns about the IRS may continue to do so, and you may pretend that this further justifies your dismissal. But for those of us who have considered this issue seriously, without partisan blinders on, this only raises more questions.

Joke post? Your posts don't prove anything and this giant farce of a scandal was just completely dismantled.

 

[Metaphoreus]

"Tea Party" did not exist prior to 2010. "Progressive" has existed for a long time.

Not all the progressives needed flagging because not all of them refer to Democrat parties.

The IRS already had experience with progressive.

You keep saying that, yet there's no reason to believe that the IRS personnel involved think like you think, nor that you have any insight into their rationale. The fact that you're attempting to deploy it now, after it's been revealed that the IRS saw fit to include both "Progressive" and "Tea Party" on the list of words that should trigger further scrutiny only highlights how empty your case for it is.

 

[Oblivion]

To be sure, many of those of us who've been concerned about the IRS targeting wondered in the past why terms like "Progressive" and "Occupy" weren't treated as terms leading to further scrutiny. Our implication was that, if the IRS weren't motivated by partisan animus, they would have included terms associated with both the left and the right, and not just terms associated with the right. So, at first, this revelation appears to defuse the situation.

However, given what we already knew about groups with the word "Progressive" in their names, this revelation really only raises more questions. If "Progressive" was on the BOLO list just like "Tea Party," why was every single Tea Party application flagged and held up when only a fraction of "Progressive" groups were? To my mind, this information makes the situation look worse, not better. The IRS apparently recognized that "Tea Party" and "Progressive" are equally indicative of substantial campaign intervention (and I continue to maintain that neither is sufficiently indicative to alone justify further scrutiny), yet they only flagged "Tea Party" applications as a class.

So, yes, those of you who have always dismissed our concerns about the IRS may continue to do so, and you may pretend that this further justifies your dismissal. But for those of us who have considered this issue seriously, without partisan blinders on, this only raises more questions.

Pretty sure no Tea Party groups were actually rejected. The only one that was rejected was in fact, some liberal group.

 

[Tamanon]

Wait, really? Didn't read that. I find that hard to believe if so, or rather I find it hard to believe that all of those groups were actually benign.

501c's are generally one of the easiest/biggest scams out there to me. I can't imagine it's that tough to make it seem that 50% of your work is non-political in nature. Many of them just serve to funnel money to different people/groups.

 

[PhoenixDark]

You keep saying that, yet there's no reason to believe that the IRS personnel involved think like you think, nor that you have any insight into their rationale. The fact that you're attempting to deploy it now, after it's been revealed that the IRS saw fit to include both "Progressive" and "Tea Party" on the list of words that should trigger further scrutiny only highlights how empty your case for it is.

His case is empty because left and right groups were targeted for further scrutiny? You keep arguing "progressive" and "progress" are the same thing when it's quite clear that "progressive" is almost always used by liberal groups.

Again, we are arguing over left and right groups being asked to produce more paperwork before ultimately being approved. Not of conservative groups being roundly rejected, or specifically singled out while liberal (or "progressive") groups were given a free pass. Political groups on both sides were targeted. It's a shame that our campaign finance laws allow many of these groups to be tax exempt in the first place, I see nothing wrong with giving them as much scrutiny as possible.

 

[Metaphoreus]

His case is empty because left and right groups were targeted for further scrutiny? You keep arguing "progressive" and "progress" are the same thing when it's quite clear that "progressive" is almost always used by liberal groups.

Again, we are arguing over left and right groups being asked to produce more paperwork before ultimately being approved. Not of conservative groups being roundly rejected, or specifically singled out while liberal (or "progressive") groups were given a free pass. Political groups on both sides were targeted. It's a shame that our campaign finance laws allow many of these groups to be tax exempt in the first place, I see nothing wrong with giving them as much scrutiny as possible.

I've made my case elsewhere, and I don't see much reason to reiterate it here. However, it is undeniable that every application containing "Tea Party" was flagged for further scrutiny and subject to substantial delay in processing, whereas the vast majority of applications including "Progressive"--which by your admission is a term "almost always used by liberal groups"--were approved without further scrutiny. If you think that that fails to provide evidence that conservative groups were specifically singled out while liberal groups were given a free pass, then I doubt I could convince you otherwise.

 

[Black Mamba]

You keep saying that, yet there's no reason to believe that the IRS personnel involved think like you think, nor that you have any insight into their rationale. The fact that you're attempting to deploy it now, after it's been revealed that the IRS saw fit to include both "Progressive" and "Tea Party" on the list of words that should trigger further scrutiny only highlights how empty your case for it is.

I don't get your argument at all. The fact that they actually put liberal sounding terms on the BOLO list too someone bolsters the conservative targeting claim? Is this bizzarro world?

What evidence is there that the IRS targeted conservative groups and denied them tax exemption for political reasons?

because, to date, I've seen zero hard evidence and all you've done is come up with speculation.

I've made my case elsewhere, and I don't see much reason to reiterate it here. However, it is undeniable that every application containing "Tea Party" was flagged for further scrutiny and subject to substantial delay in processing, whereas the vast majority of applications including "Progressive"--which by your admission is a term "almost always used by liberal groups"--were approved without further scrutiny. If you think that that fails to provide evidence that conservative groups were specifically singled out while liberal groups were given a free pass, then I doubt I could convince you otherwise.

Where is the evidence that the Tea Party groups didn't deserve the extra scrutiny while the progressive groups did?

Maybe the IRS saw there was questions to the political nature of these Tea Party groups, which makes sense since it's a fucking political party, versus something like "progressive" which has been around for a long time and does not always refer to a political party.

 

[Metaphoreus]

I don't get your argument at all. The fact that they actually put liberal sounding terms on the BOLO list too someone bolsters the conservative targeting claim? Is this bizzarro world?

What evidence is there that the IRS targeted conservative groups and denied them tax exemption for political reasons?

because, to date, I've seen zero hard evidence and all you've done is come up with speculation.

The fact that liberal-sounding terms were placed on the BOLO list, yet groups with those terms were not subject to the same enhanced scrutiny given to conservative-sounding terms on the BOLO list does bolster the conservative targeting claim. Because here you have the IRS looking at a list, the constituent members of which are presumably subject to the very same treatment, and yet deciding to treat liberal members far more favorably than conservative members.

There is ample evidence that the IRS targeted conservative groups (consider, for instance, the IRS admission that, and here I paraphrase slightly, "We've been targeting conservative groups. Our bad."), and I have never claimed that the IRS denied them tax exemption for political reasons, so I offer no evidence for that point.

 

[Black Mamba]

You keep saying that, yet there's no reason to believe that the IRS personnel involved think like you think, nor that you have any insight into their rationale. The fact that you're attempting to deploy it now, after it's been revealed that the IRS saw fit to include both "Progressive" and "Tea Party" on the list of words that should trigger further scrutiny only highlights how empty your case for it is.

The fact that liberal-sounding terms were placed on the BOLO list, yet groups with those terms were not subject to the same enhanced scrutiny given to conservative-sounding terms on the BOLO list does bolster the conservative targeting claim. Because here you have the IRS looking at a list, the constituent members of which are presumably subject to the very same treatment, and yet deciding to treat liberal members far more favorably than conservative members.

There is ample evidence that the IRS targeted conservative groups (consider, for instance, the IRS admission that, and here I paraphrase slightly, "We've been targeting conservative groups. Our bad."), and I have never claimed that the IRS denied them tax exemption for political reasons, so I offer no evidence for that point.

Where are you getting this? This is completely false. Numerous progressive groups were under the same scrutiny. Progressive United Inc, Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada. ProgressNow, All these were held up the same.

The IG report said 470 groups were flagged, and the IG counted only 72 "Tea party" out of the 298 is looked at.

A liberal group was even denied, no tea party group has yet been denied. You're simply making facts up.

 

[Chumly]

The fact that liberal-sounding terms were placed on the BOLO list, yet groups with those terms were not subject to the same enhanced scrutiny given to conservative-sounding terms on the BOLO list does bolster the conservative targeting claim. Because here you have the IRS looking at a list, the constituent members of which are presumably subject to the very same treatment, and yet deciding to treat liberal members far more favorably than conservative members.

There is ample evidence that the IRS targeted conservative groups (consider, for instance, the IRS admission that, and here I paraphrase slightly, "We've been targeting conservative groups. Our bad."), and I have never claimed that the IRS denied them tax exemption for political reasons, so I offer no evidence for that point.

What are you talking about? You are literally making stuff up. There is no proof to any of your claims.

 

[Cyan]

This was about 501c groups right?

501(c)4 groups ,specifically. Which might seem like nitpicking, but is an important distinction as 501(c)3 groups are legit charitable foundations.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Where are you getting this? This is completely false. Numerous progressive groups were under the same scrutiny. Progressive United Inc, Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada. ProgressNow, All these were held up the same.

The IG report said 470 groups were flagged, and the IG counted only 72 "Tea party" out of the 298 is looked at.

A liberal group was even denied, no tea party group has yet been denied. You're simply making facts up.

Oh come on. You know that I've linked to this resource, and that I've even pointed out that it included 7 groups with "Progress" in their names, and 2 with "Progressive," so you can't seriously have interpreted my comments as meaning that not a single group with "Progressive" in its name was subjected to further scrutiny.

EDIT:

Chumly, I don't remember having interacted with you on this issue, so, to help our discussion, here are some of my previous posts on this.

 

[Deified Data]

So essentially a nonscandal was a nonscandal.

Who'd have thunk?

The IRS allowed many of these groups under scrutiny to obtain tax-exempt status anyway. That's the real scandal, IMO.

 

[Black Mamba]

Oh come on. You know that I've linked to this resource, and that I've even pointed out that it included 7 groups with "Progress" in their names, and 2 with "Progressive," so you can't seriously have interpreted my comments as meaning that not a single group with "Progressive" in its name was subjected to further scrutiny.

So if you admit that these groups got further scrutiny, then you admit this statement: "yet groups with those terms were not subject to the same enhanced scrutiny given to conservative-sounding terms on the BOLO list" is incorrect.

You admit they did.

Now it's on you to prove that "tea party" was disproportionately targeted compared to other group by giving evidence that either those groups didn't deserve scrutiny or the progressives that weren't given scrutiny deserved it.

Otherwise, you're coming from the Darrell Issa school of hot air.

edit: And that list is only a list of those whose status is resolved because the IRS cannot release the named of those not. There are other "progressive" in that list not yet released.

 

[speculawyer]

Man, Issa really looks like a fool now. He was pushing a narrative of "This came from Washington" (implying the White House).

And now the whole scandal has fallen apart.


Of course, lucky for him his fans have the memory span of a gnat.

 

[Oblivion]

Oh come on. You know that I've linked to this resource, and that I've even pointed out that it included 7 groups with "Progress" in their names, and 2 with "Progressive," so you can't seriously have interpreted my comments as meaning that not a single group with "Progressive" in its name was subjected to further scrutiny.

EDIT:

Chumly, I don't remember having interacted with you on this issue, so, to help our discussion, here are some of my previous posts on this.

Question: even if all this targeting for conservative groups was done intentionally, what is the sinister reason for doing so? Again, every single one of these groups (unfortunately) got approved, so if someone was trying to screw over Republicans, well, personally I feel it's a pretty lame way to go about it.

And can we also point out once again that the head guy in charge during this time was a self proclaimed conservative Republican hired under Bush?

 

[Tamanon]

I expect the focus now to be on the fact that the IRS is targeting Israel! DAMN YOU NOBAMA!

 

[Metaphoreus]

So if you admit that these groups got further scrutiny, then you admit this statement: "yet groups with those terms were not subject to the same enhanced scrutiny given to conservative-sounding terms on the BOLO list" is incorrect.

You admit they did.

Now it's on you to prove that "tea party" was disproportionately targeted compared to other group by giving evidence that either those groups didn't deserve scrutiny or the progressives that weren't given scrutiny deserved it.

Otherwise, you're coming from the Darrell Issa school of hot air.

edit: And that list is only a list of those whose status is resolved because the IRS cannot release the named of those not. There are other "progressive" in that list not yet released.

BM, you and I have been discussing this long enough that you know that I acknowledge that the Inspector General found that a large majority of Tea Party groups should have been flagged even on the basis of appropriate criteria, so I've never attempted to prove that the Tea Party groups shouldn't have received further scrutiny. My complaint has always been addressed at the criteria used, and its one-sidedness. The OP's revelation exacerbates that one-sidedness, since it presents the terms "Tea Party" and "Progressive" as being similarly situated in the minds of the IRS agents involved, yet nevertheless subjected to significantly different treatment.

As for the list, if we assume that the ratio of flagged-and-approved-Progressive-groups to flagged-Progressive-groups is roughly equal to the ratio of flagged-and-approved-Tea-Party-groups to flagged-Tea-Party-groups, then there were a total of about 5 "Progressive" groups flagged during the relevant time period--which, as I've pointed out, is a fraction of the number of "Progressive" groups approved during the same time period.

 

[Link]

Man, Issa really looks like a fool now. He was pushing a narrative of "This came from Washington" (implying the White House).

And now the whole scandal has fallen apart.


Of course, lucky for him his fans have the memory span of a gnat.

His fans won't be watching/reading any sources that report this.

 

[Black Mamba]

BM, you and I have been discussing this long enough that you know that I acknowledge that the Inspector General found that a large majority of Tea Party groups should have been flagged even on the basis of appropriate criteria, so I've never attempted to prove that the Tea Party groups shouldn't have received further scrutiny. My complaint has always been addressed at the criteria used, and its one-sidedness. The OP's revelation exacerbates that one-sidedness, since it presents the terms "Tea Party" and "Progressive" as being similarly situated in the minds of the IRS agents involved, yet nevertheless subjected to significantly different treatment.

If your complaint is that the IRS flagged anyone using any "word criteria," regardless of political affiliation, then that's fine. But you are honing in on the conservatives.

As for the list, if we assume that the ratio of flagged-and-approved-Progressive-groups to flagged-Progressive-groups is roughly equal to the ratio of flagged-and-approved-Tea-Party-groups to flagged-Tea-Party-groups, then there were a total of about 5 "Progressive" groups flagged during the relevant time period--which, as I've pointed out, is a fraction of the number of "Progressive" groups approved during the same time period.

First off, as I stated, there aren't just 5. That list is the list of those whose status is resolved. The unresolved cannot be listed so there are almost certainly groups with "progressive" still in there not approved.

Furthermore, the ratio is irrelevant. If all those tea party groups flagged were justified and the Progressive that weren't flagged were justified in not flagging, the ratio is irrelevant. If more tea party groups are questionable than progressives, holding to a ratio would be wrong.

Here's my problem with your argument. you're essentially arguing that if more tea party groups were given heightened scrutiny than progressive groups, this means there was unfair targeting. But this argument is wrong.

The IRS took everyone on the BOLO, supposedly, and paid more attention to them,. If they came across red flags during this point, they got heightened scrutiny.

If a lot of the "progressive" filers didn't need heightened scrutiny but a lot more of the tea party ones did, that means the IRS is doing its job, not that it's targeting conservatives. The ratios cannot be equal if one side is more questionable.


Again, you have to establish that the conservative groups were either unfairly targeted and/or that liberal groups were unfairly given a pass. Without doing so, I see no reason why it isn't possible that more progressive groups simply didn't raise red flags to the IRS investigators compared to tea party groups.

And again, this makes sense given that the Tea Party was an actual political party founded in 2010 while progressives have been around for a long time and the IRS knows what its looking at with them, more or less.

 

[Agnostic]

The real scandal is the IRS not going after the big money and "Pulpit Freedom Sunday" religious groups.

 

[hawkshockey11]

 

[CharlieDigital]

The IRS allowed many of these groups under scrutiny to obtain tax-exempt status anyway. That's the real scandal, IMO.

Give this man a cookie!

The real scandal is the IRS not going after the big money and "Pulpit Freedom Sunday" religious groups.

Shit would go cray-cray if that ever happened.

 

[Escape Goat]

the Fox News article does a tremendous job of avoiding any mention of liberals. They just cite other organizations and it was worse than they thought. Oh, Fox News...

 

[Suikoguy]

501(c)4 groups ,specifically. Which might seem like nitpicking, but is an important distinction as 501(c)3 groups are legit charitable foundations.

Is there a reason WHY 401c4 groups exist then if 501c3 covers the legit organizations?

 

[revolverjgw]

 

[PhoenixDark]

I've made my case elsewhere, and I don't see much reason to reiterate it here. However, it is undeniable that every application containing "Tea Party" was flagged for further scrutiny and subject to substantial delay in processing, whereas the vast majority of applications including "Progressive"--which by your admission is a term "almost always used by liberal groups"--were approved without further scrutiny. If you think that that fails to provide evidence that conservative groups were specifically singled out while liberal groups were given a free pass, then I doubt I could convince you otherwise.

You have 0 evidence of the delays being politically motivated. What you have is a couple guys at a local IRS consolidating requests, being told to stop, and later re-starting the consolidation process.

It's not the IRS' fault that most Tea Party groups were clearly promoting political activism or straight up campaigning for Romney while many of the liberal groups weren't even focusing on the 2012 election.

 

[Tamanon]

Is there a reason WHY 401c4 groups exist then if 501c3 covers the legit organizations?

Well, back in the day, it was for Social Welfare causes not specified in the other statutes. Intended because political activity was outlawed and there's no real way to separate arguing for Social Justice and politics.

Now, it's been bastardized because of Citizens United.

 

[Tom_Cody]

Treasury IG: Liberal groups weren't targeted by IRS like Tea Party

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-mon...ig-liberal-groups-not-targeted-like-tea-party