You're first point is right. There was no increase in the number of applications, though there was an increase in the number of conservative groups filing in 10, but the real increase didn't happen before '11.
Your second point is wrong. The actual words Tea Party appeared on paper, but they appear to be shorthand for both overly political groups and as a catchall for conservative groups. There is no evidence that any group was singled out because it had tea party in its name.
Determinations Unit personnel indicated that they used the description Tea Party as a shorthand way of referring to the group of cases involving political campaign
intervention rather than to target any particular group. The specialist used Tea Party, Patriots, and 9/12 as part of the criteria for these searches.
While the heading of the document listing these 18 cases referred to Tea Party cases, not all of the organizations listed had Tea Party in their names.
The list included 40 cases, 18 of which did not have Tea Party in their names.
That said there was enough of an increase to warrant an investigation by the determinations unit. According to the officials in charge, they viewed Tea Party as a catchall for politically sounding names. Initially they found that there were 18 such groups, not all of whom had tea party in their names, and two of which had already been approved.
Prior to the BOLO listing development, an e-mail was sent updating the description of applications involving potential political campaign intervention and providing a coordinator contact for the cases. The description was changed to read, “These cases involve various local organizations in the Tea Party movement [that] are applying for exemption under 501(c)(3) or 501(c)(4).”
The BOLO listing was developed by the Determinations Unit in order to replace the existing practice of sending separate e-mails to all Determinations Unit employees as to cases to watch for, potentially abusive cases, cases requiring processing by the team of specialists, and emerging issues. The description of applications involving potential political campaign intervention on the BOLO listing was the same description used in the July 27, 2010, e-mail.
Tea Party groups were identified because they were the ones abusing 501(c)(4) and 501(c)(3) NFP status. This wasn't an effort to get conservatives. It was a recognition that conservatives were trying to scam the system.
To your last point, there is no listing of the 298 groups which were sent to group of specialists for extra scrutiny. However, the audit found that 207 were processed correctly, 91 should not have been included, but there were 144 political groups which were missed. As of yet, there has not been any breakdown of these numbers by politcal views.
Finally, it is absurd to hold the IRS to a standard above which you would hold any other organization without also acknowledging that you're holding them up to a much higher standard. From all initial reports, it appears that these were understaffed employees with significant management turnover trying to do an impossible job in good faith. I've dealt with the IRS. Unless you are actively trying to screw them, they are incredibly understanding and helpful.