31 Christian & Jewish leaders in Ohio have asked the IRS twice to investigate political activities by two conservative Christian churches.
The IRS is not confirming or denying that it has an ongoing investigation.
Meanwhile...the IRS is investigating several liberal organizations.
The article doesn't give a breakdown of the political affiliation of non-profits being investigated for political activities, but at least the Washington Post (admittedly a bastion of the liberal media) is raising the question about political bias in how the IRS chooses its investigation targets.
More importantly, the number of such investigations has risen dramatically (according to IRS sources quoted). This is both a means of attacking an organization (sic the IRS on 'em) and an indication of how uncomfortable people are with non-profits (including churches) engaging in political activities...even if they stay within the law.
What's at stake is their tax-exempt status, ultimately. The question is whether US taxpayer's money should go toward political speech -- not whether such speech by individuals is protected speech.
Seems kind of ludicrous, though for the IRS to investigate a church because the pastor criticized the Administration from the pulpit, but to NOT go after places that are actively campaigning for a candidate -- again...from the pulpit.
The law does seem pretty clear in stating that the first activity (criticizing the administration) is perfectly legal for any non-profit. Whereas actively campaigning for a candidate is expressly forbidden. It would, of course, depend on what form the criticism or campaigning took. Some things are legal and some are not.
Of course, it doesn't say whether the IRS will take any action in the first case, but even the threat of an IRS investigation has been known to pull a chill on things.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd take that article with a HUGE grain of salt.
One very simple fact that would have told us a lot - the political affiliations of the 82 organizations investigated - wasn't in the article. The case against the two liberal organizations (which date from 2004) were summarized in a single sentence.
The lack of confirmation of an investigation on the new allegations was cited as somehow suggesting favoritism, yet there's no discussion whatsoever on the timeframe of making such investigations public. The NAACP is the one who made their investigation public, and quotes from the IRS at that time indicate that they cannot comment on investigations of particular organizations.
The report lacks every possible means a reader could have of evaluating this situation except for a lot of shrill accusation from both sides.
We don't know if an investigation has been started against the Ohio churches. We don't know what the makeup of the groups against which the IRS has taken action.
We don't know anything except that a 1) a complaint has been made, 2) the IRS doesn't comment on ongoing investigations, and 3) despite this, the complainers felt the need to complain again.
It's a shoddy piece of reporting.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
In other words, Dagonee, ignore the fact that the IRS is refusing to disclose the political lean of the groups being investigated, and pretend that Dubya's Republican neo"conservative" appointees to the IRS leadership positions are distributing those investigations fairly between those who oppose and those who favor the Republican neo"conservative" agenda.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow. Your ability to make up crap keeps getting better.
Please tell me where I said ignore anything. Please tell my why a request for some actual facts is somehow pretending. Please tell me how a post which says ABSOOLUTELY NOTHING about whether the IRS is being politically discriminatory amounts to the bull you just stated.
Or better yet, stop making stuff about what other people post.
Your ongoing campaign to restate people's positions is beyond annoying. It's dishonest. Your lying needs to stop. Now.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Gah! I thought there was going to be a war here!
Anyway, fwiw, I agree wholeheartedly that this article was less than informative on the point they were apparently trying to make -- that the IRS suffers from political bias at the top. There's just no evidence about it one way or the other in the article.
What it does have is some interesting speculation about people using the IRS as a political tool, though. If you're ticked off at the local preacher, listen in on a sermon and if any candidates' names are mentioned, rat them out to the IRS and try to get their tax-exempt status changed.
On the other hand, it's also worth noting that the IRS has seen a huge increase in complaints about this issue, thus raising the question about whether or not pulpits are becoming more politicized in recent years.
Or if people are more sensitive to it.
I figured we might have an interesting discussion about those topics.
Until/unless someone orders a GAO investigation of the IRS's investigations arm, I don't think there's any credible evidence of any bias, or any evidence that there is no bias. It's just not really something we can talk much about at this point.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
My free-speech spidey-sense goes off any time the government has to evaluate the contents of speech in order to decide whether to penalize someone or deny them a benefit.
Sometimes it's clearly necessary and not very difficult (explicit threats) and sometimes it's clearly necessary and a little difficult (roundabout threats), but in general it makes me suspicious.
Here we are dealing with speech that is at the very heart of the zone of protected speech. Political opinions are supposed to be the least burdened by government regulation.
On the other hand, tax exemptions automatically give someone a leg up over someone without tax exemptions in the marketplace of ideas. (This is why I generally oppose subsidized expressive speech.) I think it's fairly clear that the government can do this as long as the restrictions are viewpoint neutral. But I'm still unclear as to whether they should.
Especially when it can so easily be used by private entities with major grudges, as it might or might not have been here. Do we want to encourage a network of people snitching on what their political opponents say in church?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
But if you've got 31 local pastors & rabbis signing a letter to the IRS, I'd sure want it investigated.
Those folks know the rules they all operate under and they also know that if they start a "snitch" war, it'd be bad for everyone. In such a case, I suspect they were fairly reluctant and only contacted the IRS when the violations became too flagrant to be ignored.
Protestations of liberal anger aside...
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hereis a guy who knew all about the IRS being used as a political tool. The present administration has no clue. It appears that no one there has ever heard the word "Nixon".
Posts: 1167 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
Artemisia, I'm not sure what you are actually hinting at with that link. I mean, the IRS today is not the IRS in Nixon's time, so it couldn't be that. I read the article and didn't see anything about the IRS in there either.
Was your point that the IRS has been used as a tool by previous administrations?
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes. Anderson was a well publicized target of the IRS during the Nixon administration because of his journalistic inquiries into administration hi-jinks. The present senario of the FBI demanding all the papers of a "retired for twenty years, dead" journalist not only reopens the feelings from the Nixon era, but links the present administration to such practices.
Posts: 1167 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
