Photo credit: themoderatevoice.com
Tea Party and other patriot groups have been targeted
by the IRS, in most cases, enduring endless delays in the approval of the tax-exempt
501(c)(4) classification. A former chairman of the Federal Election Commission,
Bradley A. Smith, lays out the incriminating timeline in today’s WSJ online:
Connecting the Dots in the IRS Scandal
The 'smoking
gun' in the targeting of conservative groups
has been hiding in plain sight.
The mainstream
press has justified its lack of coverage over the Internal Revenue Service targeting
of conservative groups because there's been no "smoking gun" tying President
Obama to the scandal. This betrays a remarkable, if not willful, failure to understand
abuse of power. The political pressure on the IRS to delay or deny tax-exempt status
for conservative groups has been obvious to anyone who cares to open his eyes. It
did not come from a direct order from the White House, but it didn't have to.
First, some
background: On Jan. 21, 2010, the Supreme Court issued its ruling in Citizens United v. FEC upholding the
right of corporations and unions to make independent expenditures in political races.
Then, on March 26, relying on Citizens United, the
D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the rights of persons (including corporations)
to pool resources for political purposes. This allowed the creation of "super
PACs" as well as corporate contributions to groups organized under Section
501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code that spend in political races.
The reaction
to Citizens United was no secret. Various news outlets such
as CNN noted that "Democrats fear the decision has given the traditionally
pro-business GOP a powerful new advantage."
The 501(c)(4)
groups in question are officially known as "social-welfare organizations."
They have for decades been permitted to engage in political activity under IRS rules,
so long as their primary purpose (generally understood to be more than 50% of their
activity) wasn't political. They are permitted to lobby without limitation and are
not required to disclose their donors. The groups span the political spectrum, from
the National Rifle Association to Common Cause to the Planned Parenthood Action
Fund. If forced out of 501(c)(4) status, these nonprofit advocacy groups would have
to reorganize as for-profit corporations and pay taxes on donations received, or
reorganize as "political committees" under Section 527 of the IRS Code
and be forced to disclose their donors.
Now consider
the following events, all of which were either widely reported, publicly released
by officeholders or revealed later in testimony to Congress. These are the dots
the media refuse to connect:
• Jan. 27,
2010: President Obama criticizes Citizens United in his
State of the Union address and asks Congress to "correct" the decision.
• Feb. 11,
2010: Sen. Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) says he will introduce legislation known as
the Disclose Act to place new restrictions on some political activity by corporations
and force more public disclosure of contributions to 501(c)(4) organizations. Mr.
Schumer says the bill is intended to "embarrass companies" out of exercising
the rights recognized inCitizens United. "The
deterrent effect should not be underestimated," he said.
• Soon after,
in March 2010, Mr. Obama publicly criticizes conservative 501(c)(4) organizations
engaging in politics. In his Aug. 21 radio address, he warns Americans about "shadowy
groups with harmless sounding names" and a "corporate takeover of our
democracy."
• Sept.
28, 2010: Mr. Obama publicly accuses conservative 501(c)(4) organizations of "posing
as not-for-profit, social welfare and trade groups." Max Baucus, then chairman
of the Senate Finance Committee, asks the IRS to investigate 501(c)(4)s, specifically
citing Americans for Job Security, an advocacy group that says its role is to "put
forth a pro-growth, pro-jobs message to the American people."
• Oct. 11,
2010: Sen. Dick Durbin (D., Ill.) asks the IRS to investigate the conservative 501(c)(4)
Crossroads GPS and "other organizations."
• April
2011: White House officials confirm that Mr. Obama is considering an executive order
that would require all government contractors to disclose their donations to politically
active organizations as part of their bids for government work. The proposal is
later dropped amid opposition across the political spectrum.
• Feb. 16,
2012: Seven Democratic senators— Michael Bennet (Colo.), Al Franken (Minn.), Jeff
Merkley (Ore.), Mr. Schumer, Jeanne Shaheen (N.H.), Tom Udall (N.M.) and Sheldon
Whitehouse (R.I.)—write to the IRS asking for an investigation of conservative 501(c)(4)
organizations.
• March
12, 2012: The same seven Democrats write another letter asking for further investigation
of conservative 501(c)(4)s, claiming abuse of their tax status.
• July 27,
2012: Sen. Carl Levin (D., Mich.) writes one of several letters to then-IRS Commissioner
Douglas Shulman seeking a probe of nine conservative groups, plus two liberal and
one centrist organization. In 2013 testimony to the House Oversight and Government
Reform Committee, former IRS Acting Commissioner Steven Miller describes Sen. Levin
as complaining "bitterly" to the IRS and demanding investigations.
• Aug. 31,
2012: In another letter to the IRS, Sen. Levin calls its failure to investigate
and prosecute targeted organizations "unacceptable."
• Dec. 14,
2012: The liberal media outlet ProPublica receives Crossroads GPS's 2010 application
for tax-exempt status from the IRS. Because the group's tax-exempt status had not
been recognized, the application was confidential. ProPublica publishes the full
application. It later reports that it received nine confidential pending applications
from IRS agents, six of which it published. None of the applications was from a
left-leaning organization.
• April
9, 2013: Sen. Whitehouse convenes the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism
to examine nonprofits. He alleges that nonprofits are violating federal law by making
false statements about their political activities and donors and using shell companies
to donate to super PACs to hide donors' identities. He berates Patricia Haynes,
then-deputy chief of Criminal Investigation at the IRS, for not prosecuting conservative
nonprofits.
• May 10,
2013: Sen. Levin announces that the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations will
hold hearings on "the IRS's failure to enforce the law requiring that tax-exempt
501(c)(4)s be engaged exclusively in social welfare activities, not partisan politics."
Three days later he postpones the hearings when Lois Lerner (then-director of the
IRS Exempt Organizations Division) reveals that the IRS had been targeting and delaying
the applications of conservative groups applying for tax-exempt status.
• Nov. 29,
2013: The IRS proposes new rules redefining "political activity" to include
activities such as voter-registration drives and the production of nonpartisan legislative
scorecards to restrict what the agency deems as excessive spending on campaigns
by tax-exempt 501(c)(4) groups. Even many liberal nonprofits argue that the rule
goes too far in limiting their political activity—but the main target appears to
be the conservative 501(c)(4)s that have so irritated Democrats.
• Feb. 13,
2014: The Hill newspaper reports that "Senate Democrats facing tough elections
this year want the Internal Revenue Service to play a more aggressive role in regulating
outside groups expected to spend millions of dollars on their races."
In 1170,
King Henry II is said to have cried out, on hearing of the latest actions of the
Archbishop of Canterbury, "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?"
Four knights then murdered the archbishop. Many in the U.S. media still willfully
refuse to see anything connecting the murder of the archbishop to any actions or
abuse of power by the king.
Last call to register your opposition
to IRS regulations here. Deadline is today.
