IRS higher-ups requested info on conservative groups, letters show[W:249]

Re: IRS higher-ups requested info on conservative groups, letters show

justabubba said:

it is partisan when you - and those like you - insist that it was only 'conservative' organizations whose applications were being held up
that belief is not true
but that is why your arguments are found to be partisan ones

Click to expand...

CHECK THE ****ING STATS!!! Conservative groups were held up, delayed, hassled, or otherwise "given the business" to the tune of about 50 to 1 verses liberal groups. Jesus Christ, dude! How can you possibly claim be informed about this topic and at the same time pretend not to know what is now common knowledge?

Re: IRS higher-ups requested info on conservative groups, letters show

Jack Fabulous said:

CHECK THE ****ING STATS!!! Conservative groups were held up, delayed, hassled, or otherwise "given the business" to the tune of about 50 to 1 verses liberal groups. Jesus Christ, dude! How can you possibly claim be informed about this topic and at the same time pretend not to know what is now common knowledge?

Click to expand...

I'd love to see where conservatives were held up 50:1. Because I'm fairly sure that didn't happen.

No one is saying that the IRS is blameless here. No one is saying that there weren't problems. After all even the appearance of a political bias is a huge problem.

But an honest take on this says that there was no significant political bias. Conservative 501c groups outspent liberal groups 10:1 and were approved 4:1. Now we see that conservative groups were investigated 2:1. In fact, conservative groups which were investigated outspent liberal groups 34:1.

Part of being informed on this subject is understanding that the huge rise in 501c4 political groups was almost entirely among conservative groups. Yes, the criteria used was biased. But so too was the abuse.

These are not social welfare groups. That's why the senate has been investigating the IRS for a year.

Re: IRS higher-ups requested info on conservative groups, letters show

Jack Hays said:

What desperate nonsense. So your point is that there was no political bias because only two thirds of the targeted groups were conservative? Really? That smells like desperation.:mrgreen:

Click to expand...

Which percentages would you accept?

Re: IRS higher-ups requested info on conservative groups, letters show

Patriots for Progress

Click to expand...

a) is that a republican or democratic leaning entity?
b) what caused you to come to that conclusion?

Re: IRS higher-ups requested info on conservative groups, letters show

justabubba said:

a) is that a republican or democratic leaning entity?

Click to expand...

Don't know, why does it matter? Aren't they suppose to review all applications? Wouldn't a review of their information (rather that random words in their name) compel further scrutiny if necessary?

b) what caused you to come to that conclusion?

Click to expand...

Why would one need to come to that conclusion? Isn't that the point?

Re: IRS higher-ups requested info on conservative groups, letters show

Dickieboy said:

Don't know, why does it matter? Aren't they suppose to review all applications? Wouldn't a review of their information (rather that random words in their name) compel further scrutiny if necessary?



Why would one need to come to that conclusion? Isn't that the point?

Click to expand...

But you'd certainly give a group like "patriot majority" more scrutiny than "Five borough cycling club" If the cycling club said that they weren't engaged in politics, I'd rubber stamp them. If patriot majority said the same thing I'd google their website, probably look at their Facebook posts to see what exactly they were doing.

And there's a good reason to do that. Not only was there a huge increase in political groups claiming 501c status, but many of these groups submitted false information.

Re: IRS higher-ups requested info on conservative groups, letters show

Mithros said:

But you'd certainly give a group like "patriot majority" more scrutiny than "Five borough cycling club" If the cycling club said that they weren't engaged in politics, I'd rubber stamp them. If patriot majority said the same thing I'd google their website, probably look at their Facebook posts to see what exactly they were doing.

Click to expand...

So you disagree with the IRS who stated that targeting organizations based on their name was wrong? Further as you state below, what if 'five borough cycling club' had indeed 'submitted false information'?

And there's a good reason to do that. Not only was there a huge increase in political groups claiming 501c status, but many of these groups submitted false information.

Click to expand...

And how does one know this? From the IG report 'none were declined'. Presumably if one submitted 'false information' they would have been denied...right?

Re: IRS higher-ups requested info on conservative groups, letters show

Mithros said:

But an honest take on this says that there was no significant political bias. Conservative 501c groups outspent liberal groups 10:1 and were approved 4:1. Now we see that conservative groups were investigated 2:1. In fact, conservative groups which were investigated outspent liberal groups 34:1.

Part of being informed on this subject is understanding that the huge rise in 501c4 political groups was almost entirely among conservative groups. Yes, the criteria used was biased. But so too was the abuse.

Click to expand...

You are using the same, discriminatory reasoning that the IRS used. The vast majority of spending by 501c4 groups is done by a handful of organizations.

There is absolutely no justification - no logic - in applying extra scrutiny (and certainly not to the level seen) to small organizations with "tea-party" in their names simply because 3-4 massive, conservative groups spent 100 million dollars on political ads.

Re: IRS higher-ups requested info on conservative groups, letters show

Dickieboy said:

So you disagree with the IRS who stated that targeting organizations based on their name was wrong? Further as you state below, what if 'five borough cycling club' had indeed 'submitted false information'?

Click to expand...

let's look at it from the IRS employees' perspective
application indicates no involvement in political campaign activity, it goes into the approved stack, as a merit approval. those were easy
those that come in with indications that most of what they do is involved in political campaign activity are screened out as denied. those were easy to process, too
now, the rest are more difficult because the regs indicate that political campaign activity cannot be the primary activity of an approved applicant
so, the employees ask for direction how to gauge the degree of political involvement which rises to the point of being found "primary". and i believe they are still waiting for that guidance
for the appropriate methodology to use to make that call between primary and tertiary activity
but the applications continue to roll in and the processing must continue
and the employees developed a shorthand to identify those which were likely to have a degree of involvement with political activity. and they established some common sense practices. a tea party application probably comes from an organization which has some degree of political activity. so would an application from 'patriots for progress'. notice how that evokes an indication of political involvement, yet it is politically androgynous in that one cannot tell whether it is left or right leaning - but that would not matter to the irs staff because they were only looking for tell tale signs of political involvement. which is why their actions were not driven by partisan politics

And how does one know this? From the IG report 'none were declined'. Presumably if one submitted 'false information' they would have been denied...right?

Click to expand...

from reading the IG report there were indications that applicants were indicating they were not involved in political activities when an irs employee search of the organization's web site proved otherwise

Re: IRS higher-ups requested info on conservative groups, letters show

Taylor said:

You are using the same, discriminatory reasoning that the IRS used. The vast majority of spending by 501c4 groups is done by a handful of organizations.

There is absolutely no justification - no logic - in applying extra scrutiny (and certainly not to the level seen) to small organizations with "tea-party" in their names simply because 3-4 massive, conservative groups spent 100 million dollars on political ads.

Click to expand...

wrong
if those tea party applicant organizations were ineligible for tax exempt status, they should not receive the exemption
having tea party in their name is one clue that they MAY be involved in political campaign activity to the point that it is their primary activity, causing the organization to be ineligible for tax exempt status
what the IG found was that short hand, using the organization name, as a determining factor, was an inadequate mechanism to cull those requiring closer scrutiny from those which were approvable on the merit of information contained in the application

what you propose is to dispense with the process and authorize all applicants for tax exempt status. a very dubious approach

Re: IRS higher-ups requested info on conservative groups, letters show

justabubba said:

having tea party in their name is one clue that they MAY be involved in political campaign activity to the point that it is their primary activity, causing the organization to be ineligible for tax exempt status

Click to expand...

How exactly does having "tea party" in your name provide ANY CLUE WHATSOEVER that it's more likely that political campaign activity will be your primary purpose (i.e. you are lying on your application).

Mind boggling.

Re: IRS higher-ups requested info on conservative groups, letters show

Taylor said:

How exactly does having "tea party" in your name provide ANY CLUE WHATSOEVER that it's more likely that political campaign activity will be your primary purpose (i.e. you are lying on your application).

Mind boggling.

Click to expand...

having tea party in the organization's name is NOT an automatic indicator that its PRIMARY activity is political campaign activity
however, having tea party in the organization's name is a reasonable indicator that it is engaged in political campaign activity to some degree
thus causing it to be kicked aside for further determination whether said political activity rose to the point of being primary

Re: IRS higher-ups requested info on conservative groups, letters show

justabubba said:

having tea party in the organization's name is a reasonable indicator that it is engaged in political campaign activity to some degree thus causing it to be kicked aside for further determination whether said political activity rose to the point of being primary

Click to expand...

Couldn't be more untrue. There wasn't a single 501(c)(4) group with "tea party" in the name that spent money on the last election.

If we really want to go the "reasonable indicator" route - the actual data suggest that the IRS should be putting any group with "tea party" in the name onto the "apply minimal scrutiny" pile.

Re: IRS higher-ups requested info on conservative groups, letters show

justabubba said:

having tea party in the organization's name is NOT an automatic indicator that its PRIMARY activity is political campaign activity
however, having tea party in the organization's name is a reasonable indicator that it is engaged in political campaign activity to some degree
thus causing it to be kicked aside for further determination whether said political activity rose to the point of being primary

Click to expand...

then if you want to prove your theory correct why wasn't their any liberal groups singled out using the same method? wouldn't you think groups with Progressive or Progression in their name would indicate a possible political activity? in the time frame their was only 3 Tea party groups who received their staus when 65 groups with Progress in their name got thiers.

Re: IRS higher-ups requested info on conservative groups, letters show

Mithros said:

Which percentages would you accept?

Click to expand...

If two thirds of the targeted groups were conservative then the discussion is over. The case for political bias is made.QED:mrgreen:

Re: IRS higher-ups requested info on conservative groups, letters show

trfjr said:

then if you want to prove your theory correct why wasn't their any liberal groups singled out using the same method? wouldn't you think groups with Progressive or Progression in their name would indicate a possible political activity? in the time frame their was only 3 Tea party groups who received their staus when 65 groups with Progress in their name got thiers.

Click to expand...

what makes you conclude that there were no groups/organizations/applicants, other than conservative ones, set aside for further scrutiny?
i would want to see that information

Re: IRS higher-ups requested info on conservative groups, letters show

justabubba said:

what makes you conclude that there were no groups/organizations/applicants, other than conservative ones, set aside for further scrutiny?
i would want to see that information

Click to expand...

Two thirds of thos set aside for further scrutiny were conservative. That makes the case.QED

Report: One-Third of Tax-Exempt Groups Scrutinized by IRS Were Not Conservative - Washington Whispers (usnews.com)

:mrgreen:

Re: IRS higher-ups requested info on conservative groups, letters show

Jack Hays said:

Two thirds of thos set aside for further scrutiny were conservative. That makes the case.QED

Report: One-Third of Tax-Exempt Groups Scrutinized by IRS Were Not Conservative - Washington Whispers (usnews.com)

:mrgreen:

Click to expand...

so then there were entities perceived to be other than conservative, set aside for further investigation into the degree of their political involvment

now, does anyone know what criteria were used to distinguish conservative organizations from liberal ones?

does anyone know the percentage of conservative applicants compared to liberal ones?

Re: IRS higher-ups requested info on conservative groups, letters show

justabubba said:

so then there were entities perceived to be other than conservative, set aside for further investigation into the degree of their political involvment

now, does anyone know what criteria were used to distinguish conservative organizations from liberal ones?

does anyone know the percentage of conservative applicants compared to liberal ones?

Click to expand...

Conservatives made up two thirds of the targeted groups. Liberals were no more than (almost certainly less than) one third. The rest of your post will be answered in due course by the investigation into this matter.

Re: IRS higher-ups requested info on conservative groups, letters show

American said:

Imagine if this had happened during Bush, Deuce's head would have exploded.

Click to expand...

Better yet, since they so openly embrace this action and behavior, imagine the possibilities next time there is an elected GOP administration. And the beauty of it is, they wont be able to say a single thing when suddenly all of the dem PACs are targeted, delayed, etc.

Re: IRS higher-ups requested info on conservative groups, letters show

Jack Hays said:

Conservatives made up two thirds of the targeted groups. Liberals were no more than (almost certainly less than) one third. The rest of your post will be answered in due course by the investigation into this matter.

Click to expand...

i believe your 2/3 conclusion may be premature speculation

if you cannot identify how conservative applicants were distinguished from liberal ones, then how do we know 2/3 was a legitimate allocation

if we do not know what number of applications were tendered by conservative versus liberal organizations, then how do we know that liberal organizations were not unfairly set aside, such that one in ten of the applicants were from liberal entities yet liberal applicants were set aside for deeper scrutiny at the rate of one in three
in short, we just do not know that conservatives were unfairly treated or that their applications were set aside in an inordinate manner

Re: IRS higher-ups requested info on conservative groups, letters show

justabubba said:

i believe your 2/3 conclusion may be premature speculation

if you cannot identify how conservative applicants were distinguished from liberal ones, then how do we know 2/3 was a legitimate allocation

if we do not know what number of applications were tendered by conservative versus liberal organizations, then how do we know that liberal organizations were not unfairly set aside, such that one in ten of the applicants were from liberal entities yet liberal applicants were set aside for deeper scrutiny at the rate of one in three
in short, we just do not know that conservatives were unfairly treated or that their applications were set aside in an inordinate manner

Click to expand...

Two thirds of the targeted groups were conservative. That's ideological bias on its face. Beyond that, I await the results of ongoing multiple investigations.:mrgreen:

Re: IRS higher-ups requested info on conservative groups, letters show

Jack Hays said:

Two thirds of the targeted groups were conservative. That's ideological bias on its face. Beyond that, I await the results of ongoing multiple investigations.:mrgreen:

Click to expand...

you say that but there is nothing which proves that 2/3 of those applicants were actually conservative leaning

there is nothing to show us that conservative applications were not received at a rate greater than 2/3, thereby causing those set aside to under-represent the conservative submissions
again, your premature speculation is evident

Re: IRS higher-ups requested info on conservative groups, letters show

justabubba said:

you say that but there is nothing which proves that 2/3 of those applicants were actually conservative leaning

there is nothing to show us that conservative applications were not received at a rate greater than 2/3, thereby causing those set aside to under-represent the conservative submissions
again, your premature speculation is evident

Click to expand...

The post from which I quoted to begin this discussion said that one third of the targeted groups were not conservative. Ergo, two thirds were.:mrgreen:

Re: IRS higher-ups requested info on conservative groups, letters show

Jack Hays said:

The post from which I quoted to begin this discussion said that one third of the targeted groups were not conservative. Ergo, two thirds were.:mrgreen:

Click to expand...

yes, it said that, but we have no knowledge of what was used as the criteria to make such a call
we have no idea that was a legitimate determination