6 ms·

So inside of just a few days, we have political opposition groups targeted for audits -- including questions about donors and volunteers -- and surveillance of

So inside of just a few days, we have political opposition groups targeted for audits -- including questions about donors and volunteers -- and surveillance of the press. The easier we make it for some analyst in FBI headquarters to determine everywhere a potential terrorist cell has been, the easier we make it for some other analyst to conduct political spying and harassment like the world has never seen before. You can't pick one and not get the other. In many, many ways, the political side of this is the worst part. This has nothing to do with parties or politics. It's the normal and automatic result of the creation of systems without appropriate checks and balances.

MartinCron 14y ago
we have political opposition groups targeted for audits That could be extremely ugly politics, or it may not be. Paying special attention to tax status compliance of anti-tax activists might just be a pragmatic profiling. Kind of like giving extra attention to young men flying alone on one way tickets while checking no luggage.
- hga 14y ago
  You really should check your facts before simply repeating the current party line. The acknowledged scope of the targeted investigations is so wildly beyond "anti-tax activists" the mind boggles. And see also e.g. Z Street's allegations about being questioned WRT to its views et. al. of Israel.
  - MartinCron 14y ago
    simply repeating the current party line No, the party line is that that targeting some groups is "Outrageous". I'm taking the unpopular contrarian position that maybe some organizations are more prone to be compliant with tax laws than others.
    - gyardley 14y ago
      The same office released the confidential application documents of conservative groups to ProPublica. http://www.propublica.org/article/irs-office-that-targeted-tea-party-also-disclosed-confidential-docs http://www.propublica.org/article/irs-office-that-targeted-t... Perhaps you could argue that digging into these groups was being 'prudent', if that was in fact all they did. (I'm not buying it - being opposed to taxation has nothing to do with the eligibility requirements for a 501c4.) But whatever could be the justification for sharing a confidential application with the press, if not partisan politics? That's actually a felony, not that anyone will ever be charged.
    - knowtheory 14y ago
      There is a question of governance that trancends party politics and reducing it to partisanship does the discussion a serious disservice. I'd go so far as to say that the forces who benefit from the status quo (lobbying groups of varyi g forms, and corps who've politically engineered circumstances they take advantage of) prefer discussions of governance framed as partisan he said she said arguments. What is in question here is competence in government and how tax exempt orgs are regulated.
    - hga 14y ago
      Echoing gyardley and knowtheory, this is not even a particularly partisan issue. Most of these groups represent existential threats to the national Republican party and its "establishment" members, such as ex-Senator Lugar, who is now spending more time with his family after getting primaried in 2012.
- angersock 14y ago
  "Kind of like giving extra attention to young men flying alone on one way tickets while checking no luggage." That's the only way I travel right now. Pragmatic or not, that's bullshit.
  - MartinCron 14y ago
    Always alone? That's a shame.
ThomPete 14y ago
This is exactly what Wikileaks was created to obstruct.
jellicle 14y ago
> we have political opposition groups targeted for audits What happened was the IRS decided to ask extra questions for groups attempting to register as charities but suspected to be engaged in political activities. If, as you say, they were "political opposition groups" then the IRS was completely correct in reviewing their applications; they didn't qualify to be charities. Why do "political opposition groups" deserve special tax status? Why shouldn't the IRS enforce the law?
- metaphorm 14y ago
  the IRS should enforce the law. they should enforce it equally. It appears as if they were a bit too selective. Their reasons for auditing were well justified, but they aimed those audits at a very specific group of organizations.
- hga 14y ago
  Non-profits, not charities; many of the 27 types of 501(c) organizations are not charities. Here we're talking about 501(c)(4) groups, which are explicitly allowed to engage in politics, with limits. See this for more: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5698931 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5698931
  - jellicle 14y ago
    They're social welfare groups, by law. And the intent of the registering persons is not to create a social welfare group, but to hide the identity of political donors. The creators in this case gave their groups names indicating they intended to use the group fraudulently. The IRS was completely correct to investigate them.
    - hga 14y ago
      Now wait a second: in the message I'm replying to, you said they were "charities ... suspected to be engaged in political activities". Now they're social welfare groups ... but how is hiding the identity of "political donors" a problem? They're allowed to do that! And you need to be more specific about how these charities, excuse me, social welfare groups, are fraudulent, you haven't clearly outlined what you claim they're doing that's a fraud.
giardini 14y ago
"You can't pick one and not get the other." Actually you can. But it requires ethics, something the current administration has tossed by the wayside.
- rndmize 14y ago
  By all means, point me to a single administration in the last fifty years that hasn't tossed ethics by the wayside. I'm of the opinion that ethics has very, very little to do with politics; the appearance of ethics is the important thing.

MartinCron 14y ago

we have political opposition groups targeted for audits That could be extremely ugly politics, or it may not be. Paying special attention to tax status compliance of anti-tax activists might just be a pragmatic profiling. Kind of like giving extra attention to young men flying alone on one way tickets while checking no luggage.

hga 14y ago
You really should check your facts before simply repeating the current party line. The acknowledged scope of the targeted investigations is so wildly beyond "anti-tax activists" the mind boggles. And see also e.g. Z Street's allegations about being questioned WRT to its views et. al. of Israel.
- MartinCron 14y ago
  simply repeating the current party line No, the party line is that that targeting some groups is "Outrageous". I'm taking the unpopular contrarian position that maybe some organizations are more prone to be compliant with tax laws than others.
  - gyardley 14y ago
    The same office released the confidential application documents of conservative groups to ProPublica. http://www.propublica.org/article/irs-office-that-targeted-tea-party-also-disclosed-confidential-docs http://www.propublica.org/article/irs-office-that-targeted-t... Perhaps you could argue that digging into these groups was being 'prudent', if that was in fact all they did. (I'm not buying it - being opposed to taxation has nothing to do with the eligibility requirements for a 501c4.) But whatever could be the justification for sharing a confidential application with the press, if not partisan politics? That's actually a felony, not that anyone will ever be charged.
  - knowtheory 14y ago
    There is a question of governance that trancends party politics and reducing it to partisanship does the discussion a serious disservice. I'd go so far as to say that the forces who benefit from the status quo (lobbying groups of varyi g forms, and corps who've politically engineered circumstances they take advantage of) prefer discussions of governance framed as partisan he said she said arguments. What is in question here is competence in government and how tax exempt orgs are regulated.
  - hga 14y ago
    Echoing gyardley and knowtheory, this is not even a particularly partisan issue. Most of these groups represent existential threats to the national Republican party and its "establishment" members, such as ex-Senator Lugar, who is now spending more time with his family after getting primaried in 2012.
angersock 14y ago
"Kind of like giving extra attention to young men flying alone on one way tickets while checking no luggage." That's the only way I travel right now. Pragmatic or not, that's bullshit.
- MartinCron 14y ago
  Always alone? That's a shame.

ThomPete 14y ago

This is exactly what Wikileaks was created to obstruct.

jellicle 14y ago

> we have political opposition groups targeted for audits What happened was the IRS decided to ask extra questions for groups attempting to register as charities but suspected to be engaged in political activities. If, as you say, they were "political opposition groups" then the IRS was completely correct in reviewing their applications; they didn't qualify to be charities. Why do "political opposition groups" deserve special tax status? Why shouldn't the IRS enforce the law?

metaphorm 14y ago
the IRS should enforce the law. they should enforce it equally. It appears as if they were a bit too selective. Their reasons for auditing were well justified, but they aimed those audits at a very specific group of organizations.
hga 14y ago
Non-profits, not charities; many of the 27 types of 501(c) organizations are not charities. Here we're talking about 501(c)(4) groups, which are explicitly allowed to engage in politics, with limits. See this for more: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5698931 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5698931
- jellicle 14y ago
  They're social welfare groups, by law. And the intent of the registering persons is not to create a social welfare group, but to hide the identity of political donors. The creators in this case gave their groups names indicating they intended to use the group fraudulently. The IRS was completely correct to investigate them.
  - hga 14y ago
    Now wait a second: in the message I'm replying to, you said they were "charities ... suspected to be engaged in political activities". Now they're social welfare groups ... but how is hiding the identity of "political donors" a problem? They're allowed to do that! And you need to be more specific about how these charities, excuse me, social welfare groups, are fraudulent, you haven't clearly outlined what you claim they're doing that's a fraud.

giardini 14y ago

"You can't pick one and not get the other." Actually you can. But it requires ethics, something the current administration has tossed by the wayside.

rndmize 14y ago
By all means, point me to a single administration in the last fifty years that hasn't tossed ethics by the wayside. I'm of the opinion that ethics has very, very little to do with politics; the appearance of ethics is the important thing.