Washington (CNN) -- President Barack Obama vowed Wednesday to hold accountable those at the Internal Revenue Service involved in the targeting of conservative groups applying for federal tax-exempt status, beginning with the resignation of the agency's acting commissioner who was aware of the practice.
In a brief statement delivered to reporters at the East Room of the White House, the president announced that Treasury Secretary Jack Lew had requested -- and accepted -- the resignation of acting IRS Commissioner Steven T. Miller.
The president said the "misconduct" detailed in the IRS Inspector General's report released Tuesday over the singling out of conservative groups is "inexcusable."
The president said the "misconduct" detailed in the IRS Inspector General's report released Tuesday over the singling out of conservative groups is "inexcusable."
Now see, if the Pres had only checked in on Soul Strut, he would have learned that it was totally excusable. And if he stuck around long enough, he'd probably learn that spying on/intimidating the AP was totally excusable too.
The president said the "misconduct" detailed in the IRS Inspector General's report released Tuesday over the singling out of conservative groups is "inexcusable."
Now see, if the Pres had only checked in on Soul Strut, he would have learned that it was totally excusable. And if he stuck around long enough, he'd probably learn that spying on/intimidating the AP was totally excusable too.
The president said the "misconduct" detailed in the IRS Inspector General's report released Tuesday over the singling out of conservative groups is "inexcusable."
Now see, if the Pres had only checked in on Soul Strut, he would have learned that it was totally excusable. And if he stuck around long enough, he'd probably learn that spying on/intimidating the AP was totally excusable too.
I'm not saying it was excusable- I get it, but it's not excusable.
But, we're still linking the president to this which is NOT excusable, as it is incorrect.
BonVivant's post upthread gets chirps, as it does not stoke the righteous indignation of the foil hats = this whole story in a nut shell.
But, we're still linking the president to this which is NOT excusable, as it is incorrect.
.
Why would Charles Rangel say the Prez owes us an explanation if he has no link to it whatsoever....at the very least it went on during his watch and people under him knew about it for over a year. David Axelrod explains that the government is too vast for the President to control...imo that is not an acceptable excuse.
What happened here is not only inexcusable but flat out criminal and to call the victims, who ranged from Tea Party idiots to Religious organizations/leaders, whiners, shows that some justify the means for an end they approve of.
But, we're still linking the president to this which is NOT excusable, as it is incorrect.
.
Why would Charles Rangel say the Prez owes us an explanation if he has no link to it whatsoever....at the very least it went on during his watch and people under him knew about it for over a year. David Axelrod explains that the government is too vast for the President to control...imo that is not an acceptable excuse.
What happened here is not only inexcusable but flat out criminal and to call the victims, who ranged from Tea Party idiots to Religious organizations/leaders, whiners, shows that some justify the means for an end they approve of.
As I said earlier, to Mr. Rangel and you... (full article linked below, but here's the salient quote):
Obama can???t contact the agency, because the post-Watergate law designed to prevent the Nixon-era abuses to which Obama is being compared prevents it.
But, we're still linking the president to this which is NOT excusable, as it is incorrect.
.
Why would Charles Rangel say the Prez owes us an explanation if he has no link to it whatsoever....at the very least it went on during his watch and people under him knew about it for over a year. David Axelrod explains that the government is too vast for the President to control...imo that is not an acceptable excuse.
What happened here is not only inexcusable but flat out criminal and to call the victims, who ranged from Tea Party idiots to Religious organizations/leaders, whiners, shows that some justify the means for an end they approve of.
As I said earlier, to Mr. Rangel and you... (full article linked below, but here's the salient quote):
Obama can???t contact the agency, because the post-Watergate law designed to prevent the Nixon-era abuses to which Obama is being compared prevents it.
The IRS is part of the US Treasury Department which is part of the executive branch of the federal government. The IRS reports to the Secretary of the Treasury who reports to the President. This isn't the Mafia where the Don has a layer of protection.
Of course there are a bunch of conspiracy anti-tax nuts who don't believe the IRS is connected to the government in any way.
Rock, I'll post it again, just so you're clear ON THE LAW:
Obama can???t contact the agency, because the post-Watergate law designed to prevent the Nixon-era abuses to which Obama is being compared prevents it.
No matter what you say, that's the law.
There is an argument to be made that they are too insulated (by following the law, put in place after Nixon- we seem to keep forgetting that), though. That is brought up here, in this Slate article, referencing the Inspector General's investigation.
This might be the argument that should be taking place, and if we want the President involved in the IRS (I'm so confused, by the way- I thought we didn't trust the government at all, now we want the President to do everything- it's dizzying) then we should change those laws.
I very well understand the law that separates the President from the IRS.....and I don't believe anyone thinks that Barack sat down and planned out nor approved what the IRS did....however....
WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Barack Obama on Wednesday announced the ouster of the top official at the Internal Revenue Service following disclosures that the agency targeted conservative political groups.
Obama, who has been criticized for appearing passive in his response to the matter, declared, "I am angry about it" and said the American people had a right to be angry as well.
Their actions were known by both people within and outside the administration for almost a year and the President should/could have taken the actions shown above at that point. When a team player like Rangel is questioning why that didn't happen as opposed to say, Mitch McConnell, that tells me something is up. Bush was responsible for everything that happened during his Administration and the same thing goes for the current President even if "the government is too vast for him to control.
Now I'm off on a two week digging trip....have fun.
But, we're still linking the president to this which is NOT excusable, as it is incorrect.
.
Why would Charles Rangel say the Prez owes us an explanation if he has no link to it whatsoever....at the very least it went on during his watch and people under him knew about it for over a year. David Axelrod explains that the government is too vast for the President to control...imo that is not an acceptable excuse.
What happened here is not only inexcusable but flat out criminal and to call the victims, who ranged from Tea Party idiots to Religious organizations/leaders, whiners, shows that some justify the means for an end they approve of.
What difference does it make what Rangel says on this?
Do you think the president is capable of knowing everything that happens in the government?
Can you name the law that you think was broken that makes this "flat out criminal?
Let me also give a big "LOL" to the your use of the term "victim". Again, no con groups were denied tax exempt status.
So, what is this really about? I certainly approve of the IRS doing their job, and investigating groups that claim that they qualify to not pay taxes.
As I said earlier, to Mr. Rangel and you... (full article linked below, but here's the salient quote):
Obama can???t contact the agency, because the post-Watergate law designed to prevent the Nixon-era abuses to which Obama is being compared prevents it.
The IRS is part of the US Treasury Department which is part of the executive branch of the federal government. The IRS reports to the Secretary of the Treasury who reports to the President. This isn't the Mafia where the Don has a layer of protection.
Of course there are a bunch of conspiracy anti-tax nuts who don't believe the IRS is connected to the government in any way.
Why are you ingoring this:
Obama can???t contact the agency, because the post-Watergate law designed to prevent the Nixon-era abuses to which Obama is being compared prevents it.
Is it because it destroys your "Obama was in on it" line?
So, what is this really about? I certainly approve of the IRS doing their job, and investigating groups that claim that they qualify to not pay taxes.
They could have done it in a way that did not cause so much controversy.
Can you give an example, please?
By originally using the less controversial criterion/language that they ended up settling on in May 2012: ???501(c)(3), 501(c)(4), 501(c)(5), and 501(c)(6) organizations with indicators of significant amounts of political campaign intervention (raising questions as to exempt purpose and/or excess private benefit).???
Staying generic with the language would have given them more cover. Then it probably would have been a slow-burn controversy instead of an explosive one.
It is controversial because they target organizations with certain words in their name.
If instead they targeted organizations that raised flags because of anomalies on their applications there would be no controversy.
So, what is this really about? I certainly approve of the IRS doing their job, and investigating groups that claim that they qualify to not pay taxes.
They could have done it in a way that did not cause so much controversy.
Can you give an example, please?
By originally using the less controversial criterion/language that they ended up settling on in May 2012: ???501(c)(3), 501(c)(4), 501(c)(5), and 501(c)(6) organizations with indicators of significant amounts of political campaign intervention (raising questions as to exempt purpose and/or excess private benefit).???
Staying generic with the language would have given them more cover. Then it probably would have been a slow-burn controversy instead of an explosive one.
The problem with this idea is two fold:
1) The investigations began in 2010, so the May 2012 criterion you say was settled on, wasn't in existence.
2) The language of 501c4 is clear and unambiguous. "Civic leagues or organizations not organized for profit but operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare, or local associations of employees, the membership of which is limited to the employees of a designated person or persons in a particular municipality, and the net earnings of which are devoted exclusively to charitable, educational, or recreational purposes."
The operative word is exclusively. The law has not been changed, even by the supposed May 2012 "settling".
It is controversial because they target organizations with certain words in their name.
If instead they targeted organizations that raised flags because of anomalies on their applications there would be no controversy.
Why is that a controversy? Shouldn't an organization's name be considered when determining if anomalies exist or should be looked for in the application?
Should a name like (for example) "Americans Against Social Welfare" be totally ignored?
How about "Citizens for Larger Profit Sharing for Walmart Shareholders"?
Again, the language of 501c4 is clear: Civic leagues or organizations not organized for profit but operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare, or local associations of employees, the membership of which is limited to the employees of a designated person or persons in a particular municipality, and the net earnings of which are devoted exclusively to charitable, educational, or recreational purposes.
It is controversial because they target organizations with certain words in their name.
If instead they targeted organizations that raised flags because of anomalies on their applications there would be no controversy.
Why is that a controversy? Shouldn't an organization's name be considered when determining if anomalies exist or should be looked for in the application?
Should a name like (for example) "Americans Against Social Welfare" be totally ignored?
How about "Citizens for Larger Profit Sharing for Walmart Shareholders"?
Again, the language of 501c4 is clear: Civic leagues or organizations not organized for profit but operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare, or local associations of employees, the membership of which is limited to the employees of a designated person or persons in a particular municipality, and the net earnings of which are devoted exclusively to charitable, educational, or recreational purposes.
Your attempt to paint this as a non-issue is laughable at best. And no, a groups name is not a legitimate reason to hold them to a different standard.
Even the IRS has admitted it was wrong, why can't you?
It's hardly the biggest scandal of our time, but a government agency using it's powers to harass law-abiding political groups is certainly something that can't be tolerated.
It is controversial because they target organizations with certain words in their name.
If instead they targeted organizations that raised flags because of anomalies on their applications there would be no controversy.
Why is that a controversy?
Because we have free speech rights.
Shouldn't an organization's name be considered when determining if anomalies exist or should be looked for in the application?
No.
Should a name like (for example) "Americans Against Social Welfare" be totally ignored?
How about "Citizens for Larger Profit Sharing for Walmart Shareholders"?
Those sound like awful organizations, and I wouldn't support them.
But as long as they follow the rules for 501c4 organizations they can call themselves whatever they want.
Again, the language of 501c4 is clear: Civic leagues or organizations not organized for profit but operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare, or local associations of employees, the membership of which is limited to the employees of a designated person or persons in a particular municipality, and the net earnings of which are devoted exclusively to charitable, educational, or recreational purposes.
The IRS had no reason to believe that the organizations they targeted were operating outside those rules.
In fact, best I can tell, it was determined that none of them were.
They were targeted because, like you, someone in the government didn't like the sound of the organizations name.
If you and I were interpreting those rules we would define "educational" very differently than the way the IRS did.
But we are not.
Bush was responsible for everything that happened during his Administration and the same thing goes for the current President even if "the government is too vast for him to control.
It is controversial because they target organizations with certain words in their name.
If instead they targeted organizations that raised flags because of anomalies on their applications there would be no controversy.
Why is that a controversy? Shouldn't an organization's name be considered when determining if anomalies exist or should be looked for in the application?
Should a name like (for example) "Americans Against Social Welfare" be totally ignored?
How about "Citizens for Larger Profit Sharing for Walmart Shareholders"?
Again, the language of 501c4 is clear: Civic leagues or organizations not organized for profit but operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare, or local associations of employees, the membership of which is limited to the employees of a designated person or persons in a particular municipality, and the net earnings of which are devoted exclusively to charitable, educational, or recreational purposes.
Your attempt to paint this as a non-issue is laughable at best. And no, a groups name is not a legitimate reason to hold them to a different standard.
Even the IRS has admitted it was wrong, why can't you?
It's hardly the biggest scandal of our time, but a government agency using it's powers to harass law-abiding political groups is certainly something that can't be tolerated.
A group's name is not a reason to hold them to a different standard? Really? So, a group calling themselves the Ku Klux Klan should not be investigated more thorougly than "Americans for Social Welfare" when they both ask for 501c4 status? Right. Keep telling yourself that.
And the reason I see this as non issue is because I'm not a politician, nor do I work for the federal government. I can look at the facts and the law, and not be swayed by emotion or irrational fear of government overreach. Who cares what the IRS admits to or not? I'm not allowed to disagree with them? Ok.
I also don't think requiring a group to wait a bit longer to determine if they qualify for tax exempt status (which there is no right to), and then APPROVING them for it is "harassment". Especially since they weren't the only groups subjected to heightened scrutiny. Again, there is no right to tax exempt status. Period.
The whole point of the investigation was to determine if, in fact, these groups were "law abiding", and not trying to unlawfully receive tax exempt status. There's no "preumption of innocence" for tax exemption seekers. Sorry.
It is controversial because they target organizations with certain words in their name.
If instead they targeted organizations that raised flags because of anomalies on their applications there would be no controversy.
Why is that a controversy?
Because we have free speech rights. .
Tax exemption isn't a right under the 1st Amendment.
Those sound like awful organizations, and I wouldn't support them.
But as long as they follow the rules for 501c4 organizations they can call themselves whatever they want.
Again, the language of 501c4 is clear: Civic leagues or organizations not organized for profit but operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare, or local associations of employees, the membership of which is limited to the employees of a designated person or persons in a particular municipality, and the net earnings of which are devoted exclusively to charitable, educational, or recreational purposes.
The IRS had no reason to believe that the organizations they targeted were operating outside those rules.
In fact, best I can tell, it was determined that none of them were.
They were targeted because, like you, someone in the government didn't like the sound of the organizations name.
If you and I were interpreting those rules we would define "educational" very differently than the way the IRS did.
But we are not.
Wow. You really miss every single point I was making. It just went way over your head, huh?
Group's names DO matter. Sorry. If you don't think a name of an organization can shed light on the groups purpose, I don't know what to tell you. It's a truly bizarre position that you're holding. You can try to make this about "me", but unlike you, I'm not so naive as to think that a group's name is meaningless.
Group: "Whites in Favor of Murdering All Minorities"
LaserWolf: "That name doesn't mean anything".
Ok.
And, clearly the IRS DID have a reason to target these organizations, most of which were NOT conservative groups. Otherwise they wouldn't have investigated.
This isn't rocket science.
I also don't know why you are bringing up the word "educational", when the operative word of the statute is exclusively.
It is controversial because they target organizations with certain words in their name.
If instead they targeted organizations that raised flags because of anomalies on their applications there would be no controversy.
Why is that a controversy? Shouldn't an organization's name be considered when determining if anomalies exist or should be looked for in the application?
Should a name like (for example) "Americans Against Social Welfare" be totally ignored?
How about "Citizens for Larger Profit Sharing for Walmart Shareholders"?
Again, the language of 501c4 is clear: Civic leagues or organizations not organized for profit but operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare, or local associations of employees, the membership of which is limited to the employees of a designated person or persons in a particular municipality, and the net earnings of which are devoted exclusively to charitable, educational, or recreational purposes.
Your attempt to paint this as a non-issue is laughable at best. And no, a groups name is not a legitimate reason to hold them to a different standard.
Even the IRS has admitted it was wrong, why can't you?
It's hardly the biggest scandal of our time, but a government agency using it's powers to harass law-abiding political groups is certainly something that can't be tolerated.
A group's name is not a reason to hold them to a different standard? Really? So, a group calling themselves the Ku Klux Klan should not be investigated more thorougly than "Americans for Social Welfare" when they both ask for 501c4 status? Right. Keep telling yourself that.
And the reason I see this as non issue is because I'm not a politician, nor do I work for the federal government. I can look at the facts and the law, and not be swayed by emotion or irrational fear of government overreach. Who cares what the IRS admits to or not? I'm not allowed to disagree with them? Ok.
You're allowed to disagree with whatever you want, but if this is your reasoning don't be surprised if other people don't take you seriously.
So, what is this really about? I certainly approve of the IRS doing their job, and investigating groups that claim that they qualify to not pay taxes.
They could have done it in a way that did not cause so much controversy.
Can you give an example, please?
By originally using the less controversial criterion/language that they ended up settling on in May 2012: ???501(c)(3), 501(c)(4), 501(c)(5), and 501(c)(6) organizations with indicators of significant amounts of political campaign intervention (raising questions as to exempt purpose and/or excess private benefit).???
Staying generic with the language would have given them more cover. Then it probably would have been a slow-burn controversy instead of an explosive one.
The problem with this idea is two fold:
1) The investigations began in 2010, so the May 2012 criterion you say was settled on, wasn't in existence.
2) The language of 501c4 is clear and unambiguous. "Civic leagues or organizations not organized for profit but operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare, or local associations of employees, the membership of which is limited to the employees of a designated person or persons in a particular municipality, and the net earnings of which are devoted exclusively to charitable, educational, or recreational purposes."
The operative word is exclusively. The law has not been changed, even by the supposed May 2012 "settling".
My point is that they should be smart enough to know the political implications of the language that they choose to use and write down. If you're the IRS, keep language generic. More savvy people eventually got them to that point. They could still go after phony right wing political groups, just don't write it into the guidelines; address it in a meeting and make sure it's not being recorded.
So, what is this really about? I certainly approve of the IRS doing their job, and investigating groups that claim that they qualify to not pay taxes.
They could have done it in a way that did not cause so much controversy.
Can you give an example, please?
By originally using the less controversial criterion/language that they ended up settling on in May 2012: ???501(c)(3), 501(c)(4), 501(c)(5), and 501(c)(6) organizations with indicators of significant amounts of political campaign intervention (raising questions as to exempt purpose and/or excess private benefit).???
Staying generic with the language would have given them more cover. Then it probably would have been a slow-burn controversy instead of an explosive one.
The problem with this idea is two fold:
1) The investigations began in 2010, so the May 2012 criterion you say was settled on, wasn't in existence.
2) The language of 501c4 is clear and unambiguous. "Civic leagues or organizations not organized for profit but operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare, or local associations of employees, the membership of which is limited to the employees of a designated person or persons in a particular municipality, and the net earnings of which are devoted exclusively to charitable, educational, or recreational purposes."
The operative word is exclusively. The law has not been changed, even by the supposed May 2012 "settling".
My point is that they should be smart enough to know the political implications of the language that they choose to use and write down. If you're the IRS, keep language generic. More savvy people eventually got them to that point. They could still go after phony right wing political groups, just don't write it into the guidelines; address it in a meeting and make sure it's not being recorded.
If they use that language, they'll be accused of editing talking points, and we'll have to move it to the BS Benghazi thread.
In all seriousness, when I incorporated, my accountant advised me not to use "production(s)" in the name of my company, as he said it was a red flag for auditors. It is nice, in theory, to think that names have no impact on IRS judgements, but they do- in a lot of ways that are less sexy than "Tea Party," and they probably always have/will.
Comments
In a brief statement delivered to reporters at the East Room of the White House, the president announced that Treasury Secretary Jack Lew had requested -- and accepted -- the resignation of acting IRS Commissioner Steven T. Miller.
The president said the "misconduct" detailed in the IRS Inspector General's report released Tuesday over the singling out of conservative groups is "inexcusable."
Now see, if the Pres had only checked in on Soul Strut, he would have learned that it was totally excusable. And if he stuck around long enough, he'd probably learn that spying on/intimidating the AP was totally excusable too.
Forget about excusable, it didn't even happen.
I'm not saying it was excusable- I get it, but it's not excusable.
But, we're still linking the president to this which is NOT excusable, as it is incorrect.
BonVivant's post upthread gets chirps, as it does not stoke the righteous indignation of the foil hats = this whole story in a nut shell.
Why would Charles Rangel say the Prez owes us an explanation if he has no link to it whatsoever....at the very least it went on during his watch and people under him knew about it for over a year. David Axelrod explains that the government is too vast for the President to control...imo that is not an acceptable excuse.
What happened here is not only inexcusable but flat out criminal and to call the victims, who ranged from Tea Party idiots to Religious organizations/leaders, whiners, shows that some justify the means for an end they approve of.
As I said earlier, to Mr. Rangel and you... (full article linked below, but here's the salient quote):
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/05/strange-creation-of-the-obama-scandals.html
The IRS is part of the US Treasury Department which is part of the executive branch of the federal government. The IRS reports to the Secretary of the Treasury who reports to the President. This isn't the Mafia where the Don has a layer of protection.
Of course there are a bunch of conspiracy anti-tax nuts who don't believe the IRS is connected to the government in any way.
No matter what you say, that's the law.
There is an argument to be made that they are too insulated (by following the law, put in place after Nixon- we seem to keep forgetting that), though. That is brought up here, in this Slate article, referencing the Inspector General's investigation.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2013/05/15/here_s_the_troublesome_part_of_the_ig_report_that_rescues_top_democrats.html
This might be the argument that should be taking place, and if we want the President involved in the IRS (I'm so confused, by the way- I thought we didn't trust the government at all, now we want the President to do everything- it's dizzying) then we should change those laws.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Barack Obama on Wednesday announced the ouster of the top official at the Internal Revenue Service following disclosures that the agency targeted conservative political groups.
Obama, who has been criticized for appearing passive in his response to the matter, declared, "I am angry about it" and said the American people had a right to be angry as well.
Their actions were known by both people within and outside the administration for almost a year and the President should/could have taken the actions shown above at that point. When a team player like Rangel is questioning why that didn't happen as opposed to say, Mitch McConnell, that tells me something is up. Bush was responsible for everything that happened during his Administration and the same thing goes for the current President even if "the government is too vast for him to control.
Now I'm off on a two week digging trip....have fun.
What difference does it make what Rangel says on this?
Do you think the president is capable of knowing everything that happens in the government?
Can you name the law that you think was broken that makes this "flat out criminal?
Let me also give a big "LOL" to the your use of the term "victim". Again, no con groups were denied tax exempt status.
So, what is this really about? I certainly approve of the IRS doing their job, and investigating groups that claim that they qualify to not pay taxes.
The IRS is part of the US Treasury Department which is part of the executive branch of the federal government. The IRS reports to the Secretary of the Treasury who reports to the President. This isn't the Mafia where the Don has a layer of protection.
Of course there are a bunch of conspiracy anti-tax nuts who don't believe the IRS is connected to the government in any way.
Why are you ingoring this:
Is it because it destroys your "Obama was in on it" line?
Can you give an example, please?
Staying generic with the language would have given them more cover. Then it probably would have been a slow-burn controversy instead of an explosive one.
If instead they targeted organizations that raised flags because of anomalies on their applications there would be no controversy.
The problem with this idea is two fold:
1) The investigations began in 2010, so the May 2012 criterion you say was settled on, wasn't in existence.
2) The language of 501c4 is clear and unambiguous. "Civic leagues or organizations not organized for profit but operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare, or local associations of employees, the membership of which is limited to the employees of a designated person or persons in a particular municipality, and the net earnings of which are devoted exclusively to charitable, educational, or recreational purposes."
The operative word is exclusively. The law has not been changed, even by the supposed May 2012 "settling".
Why is that a controversy? Shouldn't an organization's name be considered when determining if anomalies exist or should be looked for in the application?
Should a name like (for example) "Americans Against Social Welfare" be totally ignored?
How about "Citizens for Larger Profit Sharing for Walmart Shareholders"?
Again, the language of 501c4 is clear: Civic leagues or organizations not organized for profit but operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare, or local associations of employees, the membership of which is limited to the employees of a designated person or persons in a particular municipality, and the net earnings of which are devoted exclusively to charitable, educational, or recreational purposes.
Your attempt to paint this as a non-issue is laughable at best. And no, a groups name is not a legitimate reason to hold them to a different standard.
Even the IRS has admitted it was wrong, why can't you?
It's hardly the biggest scandal of our time, but a government agency using it's powers to harass law-abiding political groups is certainly something that can't be tolerated.
Because we have free speech rights.
No.
Those sound like awful organizations, and I wouldn't support them.
But as long as they follow the rules for 501c4 organizations they can call themselves whatever they want.
The IRS had no reason to believe that the organizations they targeted were operating outside those rules.
In fact, best I can tell, it was determined that none of them were.
They were targeted because, like you, someone in the government didn't like the sound of the organizations name.
If you and I were interpreting those rules we would define "educational" very differently than the way the IRS did.
But we are not.
I am glad to see you finally understand that.
Now this is suddenly a "free speech" issue? For fuck's sake, people.
A group's name is not a reason to hold them to a different standard? Really? So, a group calling themselves the Ku Klux Klan should not be investigated more thorougly than "Americans for Social Welfare" when they both ask for 501c4 status? Right. Keep telling yourself that.
And the reason I see this as non issue is because I'm not a politician, nor do I work for the federal government. I can look at the facts and the law, and not be swayed by emotion or irrational fear of government overreach. Who cares what the IRS admits to or not? I'm not allowed to disagree with them? Ok.
I also don't think requiring a group to wait a bit longer to determine if they qualify for tax exempt status (which there is no right to), and then APPROVING them for it is "harassment". Especially since they weren't the only groups subjected to heightened scrutiny. Again, there is no right to tax exempt status. Period.
The whole point of the investigation was to determine if, in fact, these groups were "law abiding", and not trying to unlawfully receive tax exempt status. There's no "preumption of innocence" for tax exemption seekers. Sorry.
Tax exemption isn't a right under the 1st Amendment.
Wow. You really miss every single point I was making. It just went way over your head, huh?
Group's names DO matter. Sorry. If you don't think a name of an organization can shed light on the groups purpose, I don't know what to tell you. It's a truly bizarre position that you're holding. You can try to make this about "me", but unlike you, I'm not so naive as to think that a group's name is meaningless.
Group: "Whites in Favor of Murdering All Minorities"
LaserWolf: "That name doesn't mean anything".
Ok.
And, clearly the IRS DID have a reason to target these organizations, most of which were NOT conservative groups. Otherwise they wouldn't have investigated.
This isn't rocket science.
I also don't know why you are bringing up the word "educational", when the operative word of the statute is exclusively.
You're allowed to disagree with whatever you want, but if this is your reasoning don't be surprised if other people don't take you seriously.
If they use that language, they'll be accused of editing talking points, and we'll have to move it to the BS Benghazi thread.
In all seriousness, when I incorporated, my accountant advised me not to use "production(s)" in the name of my company, as he said it was a red flag for auditors. It is nice, in theory, to think that names have no impact on IRS judgements, but they do- in a lot of ways that are less sexy than "Tea Party," and they probably always have/will.