3 ms·

Unless you were a conservative group a few years back. 'The controversy began in 2013 when an IRS official admitted the agency had been aggressively scrutinizi

Unless you were a conservative group a few years back. 'The controversy began in 2013 when an IRS official admitted the agency had been aggressively scrutinizing groups with names such as "Tea Party" and "Patriots."' https://www.npr.org/2017/10/27/560308997/irs-apologizes-for-aggressive-scrutiny-of-conservative-groups https://www.npr.org/2017/10/27/560308997/irs-apologizes-for-...

luckydata 7y ago
because they were abusing their tax exempt status. But that's the part you probably don't like to say out loud.
- wuliwong 7y ago
  Do you have a source for this?
masklinn 7y ago
> the agency had been aggressively scrutinizing groups with names such as "Tea Party" and "Patriots." So the IRS was profiling pro-profiling groups based on their extensive association with anti-tax and anti-government political currents, expecting that people who don't think they should pay taxes may well be trying to avoid paying taxes less than honestly? According to KOS at the time, literally the only group which got their 501(c)(4) application reviewed and rejected during that "scandal" was a progressive one. Meanwhile a bunch of "tea party" associates got their 501(c)(4) (or worse 501(c)(4)) despite historical and ongoing partisan political work. Sounds like "conservatives v twitter", where conservatives cry foul every time they get on a blocklist, and twitter replies that they can't autoban white supremacists the way they did ISIS because it'd throw out half the republican conference and a significant fraction of their followers. All in all, just more and more examples of Wilhoit's hypothesis > Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect. [0] https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2013/5/19/1210132/-The-Only-Scandal-Regarding-the-IRS-is-How-EVERY-Tea-Party-Group-Obtained-501-C-4-Status https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2013/5/19/1210132/-The-Only...
jonlucc 7y ago
The article linked in the margin on that article says that they targeted progressive groups too, though.

luckydata 7y ago

because they were abusing their tax exempt status. But that's the part you probably don't like to say out loud.

wuliwong 7y ago
Do you have a source for this?

masklinn 7y ago

> the agency had been aggressively scrutinizing groups with names such as "Tea Party" and "Patriots." So the IRS was profiling pro-profiling groups based on their extensive association with anti-tax and anti-government political currents, expecting that people who don't think they should pay taxes may well be trying to avoid paying taxes less than honestly? According to KOS at the time, literally the only group which got their 501(c)(4) application reviewed and rejected during that "scandal" was a progressive one. Meanwhile a bunch of "tea party" associates got their 501(c)(4) (or worse 501(c)(4)) despite historical and ongoing partisan political work. Sounds like "conservatives v twitter", where conservatives cry foul every time they get on a blocklist, and twitter replies that they can't autoban white supremacists the way they did ISIS because it'd throw out half the republican conference and a significant fraction of their followers. All in all, just more and more examples of Wilhoit's hypothesis > Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect. [0] https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2013/5/19/1210132/-The-Only-Scandal-Regarding-the-IRS-is-How-EVERY-Tea-Party-Group-Obtained-501-C-4-Status https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2013/5/19/1210132/-The-Only...

jonlucc 7y ago

The article linked in the margin on that article says that they targeted progressive groups too, though.