6 ms·

To be fair, in the case of the Tea Party they delayed applications through the election, and there's also evidence the IRS handed donor information to outside g

To be fair, in the case of the Tea Party they delayed applications through the election, and there's also evidence the IRS handed donor information to outside groups.

casual_slacker 13y ago
If there "is evidence", you should provide it.
- joshuahedlund 13y ago
  Here you go, straight from the "outside group": http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/14/irs-sent-confidential-info-on-conservatives-to-liberal-nonprofit-propublica/ http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/14/irs-sent-confidential-info...
  - casual_slacker 13y ago
    Here's the original source from your article: 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... I'm not convinced it's a targeting of opposing political groups by the white house though. If Propublica requested papers, and got them even if they shouldn't have, that's a bureaucratic error.
- roboneal 13y ago
  He said that on March 30, 2012, NOM became aware that the Human Rights Campaign, the pro-gay rights group, obtained confidential information of its donors and posted the information without redacting the names. That information later appeared on websites like the Huffington Post. NOM discovered another document with redactions that had been posted. A computer analysis, after removing the document's redaction layer, discovered the document had "originated from within the IRS itself." He said the group found the header of each page read: “THIS IS A COPY OF A LIVE RETURN FROM SMIPS. OFFICIAL USE ONLY." And that was proof that the leak originated from the IRS. http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/06/04/National-Organization-of-Marriage-Chairman-IRS-Leaked-Info-About-Group-s-Donors-to-Liberal-Groups http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/06/04/National-...
  - casual_slacker 13y ago
    The testimony states only that documents originated within the IRS. There isn't any indication of the means in which they were released. What would be the political sense in releasing the names of donors? A rogue leaker seems more likely to me. Testimony: http://waysandmeans.house.gov/uploadedfiles/eastman_testimony6413fc.pdf http://waysandmeans.house.gov/uploadedfiles/eastman_testimon...
    - roboneal 13y ago
      You asked for "evidence". Obviously, this evidence requires further investigation.
snowwrestler 13y ago
> in the case of the Tea Party they delayed applications through the election Which shouldn't matter if they actually are social welfare organizations. If the election is that important to them, maybe they actually were hidden political orgs after all.
- SomeCallMeTim 13y ago
  Wow, if you're being downvoted for saying that, I guess there must be a lot of Tea Party supporters here who are misusing downvotes to express disagreement. Or maybe they don't get that political organizations should not ever be charitable "social welfare" organizations, on the left or the right. In any case, it seems to me that you've got an excellent point. And the fact is that there's tons of evidence that the IRS was just being slow, not partisan, INCLUDING the linked article. "Tea Party", being a politically based category, seems like a natural red flag for the IRS, just as "Progressive" or "Libertarian" would be. It's really hard to believe that most of these organizations WOULD have qualified. If someone created a non-profit named "Democrats for Social Justice," I would equally expect the IRS to think twice about approving "charitable" status.
  - samolang 13y ago
    First of all, the IRS admitted to and apologized for specifically targeting conservative groups. Denying it at this point is absurd. Second of all, the legal definition of a "social welfare" organization is that it spends at least 51% of its money on social welfare. So legally it's allowed to spend the other 49% of its money on politics. Plenty of organizations, both liberal and conservative, take advantage of this rule.
    - SomeCallMeTim 13y ago
      >51% of its money on social welfare That's a pretty sucky rule, but regardless, I'd still have a hard time believing a "Tea Party" group would ONLY spend 49% of its money on politics, so I'm sorry, but I have to say "ha ha" that they missed a chance to influence the election. I don't care if they apologized. That's PR 101 these days, regardless of fault. They also targeted progressive groups. And open source groups, apparently. Maybe they did target MORE Tea Party groups, or maybe there were just more Tea Party applicants than progressive group applicants. Regardless, it's all mob mentality lynching of the IRS without enough evidence to know what was really going on. And I guess people who point out that it's not necessarily an actual conspiracy get downvoted for bursting that particular bubble. So be it.

To be fair, in the case of the Tea Party they delayed applications through the election, and there's also evidence the IRS handed donor information to outside groups.

casual_slacker 13y ago

If there "is evidence", you should provide it.

joshuahedlund 13y ago
Here you go, straight from the "outside group": http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/14/irs-sent-confidential-info-on-conservatives-to-liberal-nonprofit-propublica/ http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/14/irs-sent-confidential-info...
- casual_slacker 13y ago
  Here's the original source from your article: 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... I'm not convinced it's a targeting of opposing political groups by the white house though. If Propublica requested papers, and got them even if they shouldn't have, that's a bureaucratic error.
roboneal 13y ago
He said that on March 30, 2012, NOM became aware that the Human Rights Campaign, the pro-gay rights group, obtained confidential information of its donors and posted the information without redacting the names. That information later appeared on websites like the Huffington Post. NOM discovered another document with redactions that had been posted. A computer analysis, after removing the document's redaction layer, discovered the document had "originated from within the IRS itself." He said the group found the header of each page read: “THIS IS A COPY OF A LIVE RETURN FROM SMIPS. OFFICIAL USE ONLY." And that was proof that the leak originated from the IRS. http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/06/04/National-Organization-of-Marriage-Chairman-IRS-Leaked-Info-About-Group-s-Donors-to-Liberal-Groups http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/06/04/National-...
- casual_slacker 13y ago
  The testimony states only that documents originated within the IRS. There isn't any indication of the means in which they were released. What would be the political sense in releasing the names of donors? A rogue leaker seems more likely to me. Testimony: http://waysandmeans.house.gov/uploadedfiles/eastman_testimony6413fc.pdf http://waysandmeans.house.gov/uploadedfiles/eastman_testimon...
  - roboneal 13y ago
    You asked for "evidence". Obviously, this evidence requires further investigation.

snowwrestler 13y ago

> in the case of the Tea Party they delayed applications through the election Which shouldn't matter if they actually are social welfare organizations. If the election is that important to them, maybe they actually were hidden political orgs after all.

SomeCallMeTim 13y ago
Wow, if you're being downvoted for saying that, I guess there must be a lot of Tea Party supporters here who are misusing downvotes to express disagreement. Or maybe they don't get that political organizations should not ever be charitable "social welfare" organizations, on the left or the right. In any case, it seems to me that you've got an excellent point. And the fact is that there's tons of evidence that the IRS was just being slow, not partisan, INCLUDING the linked article. "Tea Party", being a politically based category, seems like a natural red flag for the IRS, just as "Progressive" or "Libertarian" would be. It's really hard to believe that most of these organizations WOULD have qualified. If someone created a non-profit named "Democrats for Social Justice," I would equally expect the IRS to think twice about approving "charitable" status.
- samolang 13y ago
  First of all, the IRS admitted to and apologized for specifically targeting conservative groups. Denying it at this point is absurd. Second of all, the legal definition of a "social welfare" organization is that it spends at least 51% of its money on social welfare. So legally it's allowed to spend the other 49% of its money on politics. Plenty of organizations, both liberal and conservative, take advantage of this rule.
  - SomeCallMeTim 13y ago
    >51% of its money on social welfare That's a pretty sucky rule, but regardless, I'd still have a hard time believing a "Tea Party" group would ONLY spend 49% of its money on politics, so I'm sorry, but I have to say "ha ha" that they missed a chance to influence the election. I don't care if they apologized. That's PR 101 these days, regardless of fault. They also targeted progressive groups. And open source groups, apparently. Maybe they did target MORE Tea Party groups, or maybe there were just more Tea Party applicants than progressive group applicants. Regardless, it's all mob mentality lynching of the IRS without enough evidence to know what was really going on. And I guess people who point out that it's not necessarily an actual conspiracy get downvoted for bursting that particular bubble. So be it.