New York Times article on the Republican scandal to neuter the IRS and commit election fraud:
When CVFC, a conservative veterans group in California, applied for tax-exempt status with the Internal Revenue Service, its biggest expenditure that year was several thousand dollars in radio ads backing a Republican candidate for Congress.
The Wetumpka Tea Party, from Alabama, sponsored training for a get-out-the-vote initiative dedicated to the defeat of President Barack Obama while the I.R.S. was weighing its application.
And the head of the Ohio Liberty Coalition, whose application languished with the I.R.S. for more than two years, sent out e-mails to members about Mitt Romney campaign events and organized members to distribute Mr. Romneys presidential campaign literature.
Representatives of these organizations have cried foul in recent weeks about their treatment by the I.R.S., saying they were among dozens of conservative groups unfairly targeted by the agency, harassed with inappropriate questionnaires and put off for months or years as the agency delayed decisions on their applications.
But a close examination of these groups and others reveals an array of election activities that tax experts and former I.R.S. officials said would provide a legitimate basis for flagging them for closer review. ...
The stakes are high for both the I.R.S. and lawmakers in Congress, whose election fortunes next year will hinge in no small part on a flood of political spending by such advocacy groups. They are often favored by strategists and donors not for the tax benefits they typically do not have significant income subject to tax but because they do not have to reveal their donors, allowing them to pour hundreds of millions of dollars into elections without disclosing where the money came from.
The I.R.S. is already separately reviewing roughly 300 tax-exempt groups that may have engaged in improper campaign activity in past years, according to agency planning documents. Some election lawyers said they believed a wave of lawsuits against the I.R.S. and intensifying Congressional criticism of its handling of applications were intended in part to derail those audits, giving political nonprofit organizations a freer hand during the 2014 campaign.
After the tax agency was denounced in recent weeks by President Obama, lawmakers and critics for what they described as improper scrutiny of at least 100 groups seeking I.R.S. recognition, The New York Times examined more than a dozen of the organizations, most of them organized as 501(c)(4) social welfare groups under the tax code, or in some cases as 501(c)(3) charities. None ran major election advertising campaigns, according to the Campaign Media Analysis Group, the main activity of a small number of big-spending tax-exempt groups that emerged as major players in the 2010 and 2012 elections.
But some organized volunteers, distributed pamphlets and held rallies leading up to the 2010 elections or the 2012 presidential election, as conservatives fought to turn out Mr. Obama.
A report issued this month by the [Bush appointed] Treasury Departments inspector general, J. Russell George, found that inappropriate criteria, including groups policy positions, were used to flag some cases and that specialists in the I.R.S. office in Cincinnati, which reviews all tax-exemption requests, sometimes asked questions that were irrelevant to the application process. ...
ome former I.R.S. officials disputed several of Mr. Georges conclusions, including his assertion that it was inappropriate to ask groups about their donors, or whether their leaders had plans to run for public office. While unusual, the former officials said, such questions are not prohibited if relevant to an application under consideration.
The I.G. was as careless with terminology as the Cincinnati office was, said Marcus S. Owens, who headed the I.R.S.s exempt organizations division until 2000. Half of those questions have been found to be germane in court decisions.
I.R.S. agents are obligated to determine whether a 501(c)(4) group is primarily promoting social welfare. While such groups are permitted some election involvement, it cannot be an organizations primary activity. That judgment does not hinge strictly on the proportion of funds a group spends on campaign ads, but on an amorphous mix of facts and circumstances.
If you have a thousand volunteer hours and only spend a dollar, but those volunteers are to help a particular candidate, thats a problem, Mr. Tobin said. ...
Emerge America, which trained women to run for office, was granted 501(c)(4) recognition in 2006, but its status was revoked in 2012. Training people how to run for office is not in itself partisan activity, but the I.R.S. determined that the group trained only Democratic women and was operated to benefit one party.
At least some of the conservative groups that are complaining about I.R.S. treatment were clearly involved in election activities on behalf of Republicans or against Democrats. When CVFC, the veterans group, first applied for I.R.S. recognition in early 2010, it stated that it did not plan to spend any money on politics. The group, whose full name in its application was CVFC 501(c)(4), listed an address shared with a political organization called Combat Veterans for Congress PAC. CVFC told the I.R.S. that it planned to e-mail veterans about ways in which they may engage in government and provide social welfare programs to assist combat veterans to get involved in government.
But later in 2010, as it awaited an I.R.S. ruling, the organization spent close to $8,000 on radio ads backing Michael Crimmins, a Republican and a former Marine, for a House seat in San Diego, according to Federal Election Commission records.
The spending is not detailed in the groups tax return for 2010, raising questions about whether it properly accounted for the expense to the I.R.S. The group also checked off a box marked No when asked if it had engaged in direct or indirect political activities on behalf of a candidate for political office.
The group received two rounds of questions from the I.R.S. in 2012, according to its lawyer, Dan Backer. They included queries about the groups donors and its exact relationship with Combat Veterans for Congress PAC. The agency also asked about CVFCs activities, but the group neglected to bring up its radio ads in its follow-up responses. ...
Some groups appeared to be confused or misinformed about the I.R.S. rules applying to their activity.
Tom Zawistowski, president of the Ohio Liberty Coalition, another Tea Party group that has complained about the scrutiny it received from the I.R.S., sent out regular e-mails to members about Romney campaign events and organized protests around the state to demand the truth about Benghazi when Mr. Obama visited before the 2012 election. The coalition also canvassed neighborhoods, handing out Romney campaign door hangers, Mr. Zawistowski said.
The I.R.S. usually considers such activities to be partisan. But when Mr. Zawistowski consulted his groups lawyers, he said, he came away understanding that the I.R.S. was most concerned with radio or television advertising. He said he believed that other activities, like distributing literature for the Romney campaign, would not raise concerns.
Its not political activity, he said.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/27/u...s-chafing-at-irs-tested-political-limits.html
