IRS ignored biggest groups
WASHINGTON — There's an irony in the Internal Revenue Service's crackdown on conservative groups.
The nation's tax agency has admitted to inappropriately scrutinizing smaller Tea Party organizations that applied for tax-exempt status, and senior Treasury Department officials were notified in the midst of the 2012 presidential election season that an internal investigation was under way. But the IRS largely maintained a hands-off policy with the much larger, big-budget organizations on the left and right that were most influential in the elections and are organized under a section of the tax code that allows them to hide their donors.
“The IRS goes AWOL when wealthy and powerful forces want to break the law in order to hide their wrongful efforts and secret political influence,” said Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., who is among a small Senate group pushing campaign finance reform measures that would force these big outside groups to disclose their donors. “Picking on the little guy is a pretty lousy thing to do.”
Karl Rove's Crossroads GPS and the Koch brothers' Americans for Prosperity were among those that spent tens of millions of dollars on TV ads and get-out-the-vote efforts to help Republicans. Democrats were aided in similar fashion by Priorities USA, made up of former Obama campaign aides, and American Bridge 21st Century Foundation, an opposition research group led by aformer adviser to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.
And yet those groups so far have escaped investigations into whether they have crossed the blurry line under the law between what constitutes a tax-exempt “social welfare” organization that is free from donor- reporting requirements and a political committee subject to taxes and disclosures.
Watchdog groups and lawmakers who have sought more disclosure claim an injustice. They say the IRS saga over the targeting of smaller groups shines a bright light onto the agency's failure to guard against the flood of secret money into the political system through the creation of the deep-pocketed groups.
Yet other advocates of reform worry that government regulators will be less likely to scrutinize the tax-exempt status of the bigger, more powerful groups out of fear that they will appear to be targeting groups for political reasons.
“We expect that opponents of disclosure will try to use the recent developments to allow the groups that are misusing the tax laws to hide donors to continue misusing them. But that's a battle that we will engage in,” said Fred Wertheimer, president of watchdog group Democracy 21.
Since a series of court decisions including the Supreme Court's ruling in the 2010 Citizens United case, the IRS has had an influx of applications — from 1,735 in 2010 to 3,357 in 2012 — by social welfare groups wanting to form under Section 501(c)(4) of the federal tax code.
That section grants tax-exempt status as long as the primary mission of these organizations is not politics and influencing elections. The IRS makes that determination. Such nonprofits can keep secret the names of their donors, which are not subject to traditional campaign finance limits.
The rules are fuzzy. The law says that these groups can be involved only in social welfare activity and not politics. But IRS regulations give the groups leeway to conduct political activities — as long as that is not the “primary activity.”
An IRS inspector general's report released last week recommended developing for the first time specific guidelines to measure the primary activity of social welfare organizations, and some in Congress have shown a willingness to review big groups such as the nonprofit Crossroads GPS and its sister super PAC, American Crossroads. They spent a combined $176 million in the last election cycle, much of it on television advertisements to benefit Republican candidates.
A Senate investigative panel led by Carl Levin, D-Mich., and John McCain, R-Ariz., has been reviewing the use of social welfare groups for political causes for the past year and now is examining the agency's handling of the tax-exempt reviews.
Despite the bipartisan outcry over the IRS scandal, there's little incentive for lawmakers on either side of the aisle to push for reforms because Republicans and Democrats alike benefit from these big outside groups.
In fact, just the opposite may be happening.
Some congressional Democrats, fearful of being tied to the scandal, are backing the push for more aggressive enforcement. And some conservative leaders and Republican donors are using the IRS scandal to help protect the status quo while preparing to pump hundreds of millions of dollars — raised anonymously in many cases with no contribution limits — into the next election cycle.
At least some Tea Party groups are unwilling to trust the agency with more enforcement power in the wake of such damaging revelations.
“The IRS' integrity is shattered,” said Jenny Beth Martin, chairman of the Tea Party Patriots, which was among the largest nonprofit conservative groups the IRS targeted. She said that now, more than ever, donors need freedom to give money anonymously “without fear of retribution” from a politicized IRS.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- House demands details of Taliban detainees swap for Bergdahl
- Study a surprise: Commercial bees unfazed by pesticides
- ‘Organic’ tag on water-raised produce raises ire
- Footage of protesters walking on flag sparks strife at Georgia university
- Unhappiness over plan to unfreeze billions in oil revenue for Iran threatens nuclear bill in Senate
- Florida fraternity members spit on disabled veterans at retreat
- Hostility at VA lingers, panel told
- Magma chamber spied under Yellowstone volcano
- 15 buffalo that escaped from farm killed in upstate N.Y.
- Reagan shooter Hinckley closer to permanent freedom
- Researcher denied access to flight after tweet pokes United Airlines security