<div dir="ltr">
<div class="">
<div class="">
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/"><img src="http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/misc/nytlogo153x23.gif" alt="The New York Times" hspace="0" vspace="0" align="left" border="0"></a>
</div>
<div class="">
</div>
</div>
<br clear="all"><hr size="1" align="left">
<div class="">May 15, 2013</div>
<h1>The Real I.R.S. Scandal</h1>
<h6 class="">By
<span><span>SHEILA KRUMHOLZ</span></span> and <span><span>ROBERT WEINBERGER</span></span></h6>
<div id="articleBody">
<p>
WASHINGTON </p>
<p>
NEWS that employees at the Internal Revenue Service targeted groups with
“Tea Party” or “patriot” in their name for special scrutiny has raised
pious alarms among some lawmakers and editorial writers. </p>
<p>
Yes, the I.R.S. may have been worse than clumsy in considering an
avalanche of applications for nonprofit status under the tax code, and
that deserves scrutiny whether or not the agency’s employees were
spurred by partisan motives. After all, some of these “tea party” groups
are most likely not innocent nonprofit organizations devoted to the
cultural significance of hot beverages — or to other, more civic,
virtues. Rather, they and others are groups that may be illegally
spending a majority of their resources on political activity while
manipulating the tax code to hide their donors and evade taxes (the <a href="http://www.npr.org/2013/05/13/183700362/irs-under-fire-for-targeting-conservative-groups">unwritten rule</a> being that no more than 49 percent of a group’s resources can be used for political purposes). </p>
<p>
The near vertical ascent in political spending by these “dark money”
groups was prompted by the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in the Citizens
United case, among others, freeing them to be more active in this
realm. </p>
<p>
And it’s a bipartisan scandal, though it’s hard to tell that judging by
the names some groups have adopted — as the I.R.S. should know. Can you
tell which of these lean left and which ones right? Patriot Majority
USA, Crossroads GPS, American Future Fund and the Citizens for Strength
and Security Fund. (Nos. 1 and 4 are liberal, 2 and 3 are conservative.)
</p>
<p>
The majority of the organizations that appear to be most politically
active — from groups that run their own ads, like American Action
Network and Americans for Prosperity, to the mysterious Center to
Protect Patient Rights, which distributes money to other political
groups — already have exempt status. There’s little evidence that the
I.R.S. is looking into these groups. </p>
<p>
The latest news will make that job more difficult. It’s unfortunate and
unacceptable that these groups may have received more scrutiny and
suspicion than they deserved — the I.R.S. reportedly even asked what
books their leaders were reading. </p>
<p>
But even more regrettable is the long-term damage to the credibility of
the I.R.S. as an impartial arbiter of whether organizations merit
tax-exempt status. This will be difficult to undo, particularly because
of the secrecy required for the agency to effectively examine
organizations without generating doubts about them, as well as to
prevent other organizations from coming up with strategies to evade
scrutiny in the future. </p>
<p>
Indeed, the latest revelations are not the first to cause pushback by
Congressional conservatives. In 2011, tax authorities considered
applying the gift tax to large contributions to 501(c)(4) groups, and
they sent letters to a handful of big donors informing them they may be
taxed. The agency received a <a href="http://www.finance.senate.gov/newsroom/ranking/release/?id=ec29441e-aefd-4192-a628-d96966cf4231">swift and forceful response</a>
from the Republican senators Orrin G. Hatch of Utah, John Kyl of
Arizona and others demanding to know whether the I.R.S. was acting on
the basis of partisanship. </p>
<p>
The agency folded like wet cardboard: the deputy commissioner took the
extraordinary step of ending the audits in progress. (That official, who
has been the acting head of the agency, was fired yesterday by the
president.) </p>
<p>
Now Republicans like Senator Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania are saying the
search criteria used by the I.R.S. are “akin to an enemies list,” like
the one kept by President Richard M. Nixon. </p>
<p>
Mr. Toomey, it should be noted, has personal experience with these
groups: in his last race, in 2010, he benefited from the outside
spending of conservative 501(c)(4) groups like the Republican Jewish
Coalition and Crossroads GPS, founded by Karl Rove. In fact, such groups
spent $17.6 million on his behalf, while liberal counterparts spent
$12.8 million helping his Democratic opponent, Joe Sestak. </p>
<p>
With the surge of dark money into politics, we need to ensure that the
I.R.S. is capable of rigorously enforcing the law in a nonpartisan, but
also more effective, way. While we focus on the rickety raft of minor
Tea Party groups targeted by the I.R.S., there is an entire fleet of big
spenders that are operating with apparent impunity. </p>
<p>
Congress has already announced hearings and investigations, and the
service’s leadership will be grilled, as it should be. But it would be a
travesty if the misdeeds here undermined the important work that must
now be done to foster greater transparency, and to bolster confidence
that the I.R.S. is in fact scrutinizing politically active groups across
the board, regardless of their ideological bent. </p>
<p>
Citizens need to rest assured that the integrity of our political system
is intact. But achieving that assurance will take more than a tempest
in a teapot. </p>
<div class="">
<p>Sheila Krumholz is the executive director of the <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/">Center for Responsive Politics</a>, where Robert Weinberger is the chairman of the board.</p> </div>
<div class="">
</div>
</div>
<br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)<br><a href="mailto:art.deco.studios@gmail.com" target="_blank">art.deco.studios@gmail.com</a><br><br><img src="http://users.moscow.com/waf/WP%20Fox%2001.jpg"><br>
</div>