The ongoing Capitol Hill battle over the IRS’ treatment
of nonprofit political groups has created a deep divide between Macomb County’s
two congressional representatives – Republican Candice Miller and Democrat
Sandy Levin.
of nonprofit political groups has created a deep divide between Macomb County’s
two congressional representatives – Republican Candice Miller and Democrat
Sandy Levin.
Of course, the IRS is a subject that generates partisan
hyperbole on both sides of the aisle, in the House and in the Senate. The tea
party still believes there’s a scandal here that’s being buried. Democrats are
convinced the GOP is milking the issue down to the last drop.
hyperbole on both sides of the aisle, in the House and in the Senate. The tea
party still believes there’s a scandal here that’s being buried. Democrats are
convinced the GOP is milking the issue down to the last drop.
When you cut through all the nonsense, the issue is that
these 501(c)(4) organizations — which, according to law, are supposed to be
social welfare groups — are not allowed to make politics their “primary
activity.” In exchange, they avoid paying taxes and they do not reveal the
names of their donors, allowing them to operate with “dark money.”
these 501(c)(4) organizations — which, according to law, are supposed to be
social welfare groups — are not allowed to make politics their “primary
activity.” In exchange, they avoid paying taxes and they do not reveal the
names of their donors, allowing them to operate with “dark money.”
The IRS
has proposed new rules that would clarify what “primary activity” means, which
critics say would severely restrict activities such as candidate forums, get-out-the-vote-efforts,
and voter registration drives. While Democrats say that tea party groups have
blatantly bent the rules that are currently on the books, Republicans say the
proposed new rules would not touch the activities of 501(c)(3) charity organizations
that are viewed as pro-Democrat institutions.
has proposed new rules that would clarify what “primary activity” means, which
critics say would severely restrict activities such as candidate forums, get-out-the-vote-efforts,
and voter registration drives. While Democrats say that tea party groups have
blatantly bent the rules that are currently on the books, Republicans say the
proposed new rules would not touch the activities of 501(c)(3) charity organizations
that are viewed as pro-Democrat institutions.
A
bill passed by the House yesterday, the “Stop Targeting of Political Beliefs by
the IRS Act of 2014 (H.R. 3865), would ban for one year the Department of the Treasury and the IRS
from enacting any changes to the rules governing 501(c)(4) organizations while
Congress completes its investigation into the 2013 activities of IRS
enforcement officials.
bill passed by the House yesterday, the “Stop Targeting of Political Beliefs by
the IRS Act of 2014 (H.R. 3865), would ban for one year the Department of the Treasury and the IRS
from enacting any changes to the rules governing 501(c)(4) organizations while
Congress completes its investigation into the 2013 activities of IRS
enforcement officials.
Here is a statement by
Miller, a Harrison Township Republican, released after the vote:
Miller, a Harrison Township Republican, released after the vote:
“Throughout its
history, there have been times when those in power have used the IRS to target,
intimidate and harass political enemies. Most recently, the IRS under
Lois Lerner, admitted to targeting conservative organizations by flagging and
delaying their applications for 501(c)(4) status.
history, there have been times when those in power have used the IRS to target,
intimidate and harass political enemies. Most recently, the IRS under
Lois Lerner, admitted to targeting conservative organizations by flagging and
delaying their applications for 501(c)(4) status.
“This incident,
currently under congressional investigation, serves as a sobering reminder of
the impact unchecked federal bureaucracies can have on Americans’
constitutionally-protected rights – in this case, the right to free
speech.
currently under congressional investigation, serves as a sobering reminder of
the impact unchecked federal bureaucracies can have on Americans’
constitutionally-protected rights – in this case, the right to free
speech.
“Sadly, instead of
waiting until the conclusion of the congressional investigation, the IRS has
proposed going a step further in the wrong direction by tapping no other than
Lois Lerner, who pleaded the Fifth (Amendment) before congressional
investigators, to draft new regulations that would empower the IRS to further
restrict the free speech of social welfare organizations.
waiting until the conclusion of the congressional investigation, the IRS has
proposed going a step further in the wrong direction by tapping no other than
Lois Lerner, who pleaded the Fifth (Amendment) before congressional
investigators, to draft new regulations that would empower the IRS to further
restrict the free speech of social welfare organizations.
“These new proposed
regulations, which would severely limit important outreach activities like
candidate forums on community issues and voter registration drives, don’t just
target conservative organizations, they threaten the free speech of all
organizations regardless of political ideology.
regulations, which would severely limit important outreach activities like
candidate forums on community issues and voter registration drives, don’t just
target conservative organizations, they threaten the free speech of all
organizations regardless of political ideology.
“I agree that the IRS
needs reform, but not the kind that empowers them to limit speech and certainly
not before Congress has the opportunity to complete its investigation.
needs reform, but not the kind that empowers them to limit speech and certainly
not before Congress has the opportunity to complete its investigation.
“When I took the oath
of office, I pledged to uphold the Constitution, which means protecting free
speech even when I may disagree with the content of that free speech. Our
First Amendment rights should never be abridged, especially by the federal
government.”
of office, I pledged to uphold the Constitution, which means protecting free
speech even when I may disagree with the content of that free speech. Our
First Amendment rights should never be abridged, especially by the federal
government.”
In contrast, here is what Levin, a Royal Oak Democrat who represents
most of Macomb County, had to say on the House floor:
most of Macomb County, had to say on the House floor:
“On a day when the Chairman of the Ways and
Means Committee, Mr. Camp, is unveiling a tax measure that requires serious
bipartisanship to be successful, we are here on the floor considering a totally
political bill in an attempt to resurrect an alleged scandal that never
existed.
Means Committee, Mr. Camp, is unveiling a tax measure that requires serious
bipartisanship to be successful, we are here on the floor considering a totally
political bill in an attempt to resurrect an alleged scandal that never
existed.
“Was there incompetence at the IRS in the
processing of 501(c)(4) applications? Yes. And I was among the very first
who said that those leading the organization should be held accountable. Was
there corruption, political interference, White House involvement, an enemies
list as the Republicans have claimed since day one? Absolutely not. There
is no evidence whatsoever to support that claim.
processing of 501(c)(4) applications? Yes. And I was among the very first
who said that those leading the organization should be held accountable. Was
there corruption, political interference, White House involvement, an enemies
list as the Republicans have claimed since day one? Absolutely not. There
is no evidence whatsoever to support that claim.
“Yesterday the IRS commissioner confirmed that
$8 million have been spent directly on those investigations, as over 255 people
have spent more than 79,000 hours doing nothing but responding to congressional
investigations. An additional $6 million to $8 million have been spent to
add capacity to information technology systems to process securely the 500,000
pages of documents Congress has received.
$8 million have been spent directly on those investigations, as over 255 people
have spent more than 79,000 hours doing nothing but responding to congressional
investigations. An additional $6 million to $8 million have been spent to
add capacity to information technology systems to process securely the 500,000
pages of documents Congress has received.
“And what have we learned? That both
progressive and conservative groups were inappropriately screened out by name
and not by activity. And that no one was involved outside of the IRS and that
there was no political motivation involved.
progressive and conservative groups were inappropriately screened out by name
and not by activity. And that no one was involved outside of the IRS and that
there was no political motivation involved.
When the Inspector General
asked his chief investigator to look into the possibility of political
motivation by the IRS, that investigator concluded, and I quote, ‘There was no
indication that pulling these selected applications was politically motivated.
The email traffic indicated that there were unclear processing directions and
the group wanted to make sure that they had guidance on processing the applications
so they pulled them. That is a very important nuance.’ Indeed it
is.
asked his chief investigator to look into the possibility of political
motivation by the IRS, that investigator concluded, and I quote, ‘There was no
indication that pulling these selected applications was politically motivated.
The email traffic indicated that there were unclear processing directions and
the group wanted to make sure that they had guidance on processing the applications
so they pulled them. That is a very important nuance.’ Indeed it
is.
“It’s precisely that lack of clarity that the
IRS was responding to in proposing new regulations for 501(c)(4) organizations.
Those new regulations are designed to bring certainty in determining whether an
organization’s primary activities are political. The regulations are among
several steps the Inspector General himself recommended the IRS undertake in
his audit report. Each of which the Republicans repeatedly called for action
on.
IRS was responding to in proposing new regulations for 501(c)(4) organizations.
Those new regulations are designed to bring certainty in determining whether an
organization’s primary activities are political. The regulations are among
several steps the Inspector General himself recommended the IRS undertake in
his audit report. Each of which the Republicans repeatedly called for action
on.
“On June 3, 2013, at a hearing before the
House Appropriations Committee, Chairman Crenshaw told acting IRS Commissioner
Danny Werfel that, “We are going to insist that the IRS implement all nine of
the recommendations in the Inspector General’s report.” A Republican
member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Roskam, has a bill to implement all
nine of the Inspector General’s recommendations, including implementing new
501(c)(4) regulations.
House Appropriations Committee, Chairman Crenshaw told acting IRS Commissioner
Danny Werfel that, “We are going to insist that the IRS implement all nine of
the recommendations in the Inspector General’s report.” A Republican
member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Roskam, has a bill to implement all
nine of the Inspector General’s recommendations, including implementing new
501(c)(4) regulations.
“Why is this important? Because applications
for 501(c)(4) status have nearly doubled between 2010 and 2012 to 3,357, and
501(c)(4) spending has skyrocketed. In 2006 $1 million was spent by
501(c)(4) organizations. In 2010, $92 million was spent. And in 2012,
$256 million was spent by 501(c)(4) organizations.
for 501(c)(4) status have nearly doubled between 2010 and 2012 to 3,357, and
501(c)(4) spending has skyrocketed. In 2006 $1 million was spent by
501(c)(4) organizations. In 2010, $92 million was spent. And in 2012,
$256 million was spent by 501(c)(4) organizations.
“The (c)(4) designation presently allows
organizations to keep their donors secret. Hidden as to which individuals
contributed. That is exactly the secrecy that the Republicans are trying
to preserve. Why? Because the three largest spenders representing fully 51% of
the total are a who’s who list of Republican political operatives. Karl Rove’s
Crossroads GPS spent $71 million. Americans for Prosperity, the Koch brothers,
spent $36 million. The American Future Fund, also the Koch brothers, spent $25
million.
organizations to keep their donors secret. Hidden as to which individuals
contributed. That is exactly the secrecy that the Republicans are trying
to preserve. Why? Because the three largest spenders representing fully 51% of
the total are a who’s who list of Republican political operatives. Karl Rove’s
Crossroads GPS spent $71 million. Americans for Prosperity, the Koch brothers,
spent $36 million. The American Future Fund, also the Koch brothers, spent $25
million.
“That’s $132 million of the $256 million that
the Federal Election Committee had reported, according to the Center for
Responsive Politics. If you live in a targeted state and you turn on your
television, you have probably seen these groups that work at distorting the
Affordable Care Act.
the Federal Election Committee had reported, according to the Center for
Responsive Politics. If you live in a targeted state and you turn on your
television, you have probably seen these groups that work at distorting the
Affordable Care Act.
That is why we are here today purely and simply. Not
because Republicans want to stand up for the rights of social welfare
organizations, and they often talk about small ones, but to preserve the
secrecy around the Republicans’ big campaign efforts.
because Republicans want to stand up for the rights of social welfare
organizations, and they often talk about small ones, but to preserve the
secrecy around the Republicans’ big campaign efforts.
“These are draft regulations that the
Republicans themselves called for. More than 76,000 public comments have
been received, and the comment period does not close until Friday.
Republicans themselves called for. More than 76,000 public comments have
been received, and the comment period does not close until Friday.
“These regulations aren’t likely to come out
this year anyway with this many comments. So why this bill? It’s very
clear and it’s very simple – there is a problem with 501(c)(4)s. The three
organizations that I mentioned are involved as political operatives in one form
or another. These are people who have donors nobody knows. This is secret
money.
this year anyway with this many comments. So why this bill? It’s very
clear and it’s very simple – there is a problem with 501(c)(4)s. The three
organizations that I mentioned are involved as political operatives in one form
or another. These are people who have donors nobody knows. This is secret
money.
“Why are we standing here and saying to the
IRS don’t look at 501(c)(4)s. Don’t look at the possible massive abuse. Don’t
look at what has happened in the last few years where political operatives,
under the guise of 501(c)(4), have moved from $1 million in many cases to $256
million as reported to the FEC.
IRS don’t look at 501(c)(4)s. Don’t look at the possible massive abuse. Don’t
look at what has happened in the last few years where political operatives,
under the guise of 501(c)(4), have moved from $1 million in many cases to $256
million as reported to the FEC.
“Our constituents, Democrats and Republicans,
are offering their comments and some of them I agree with and they all deserve
to be read, but not to be shredded at the hands of a November campaign strategy
by the Republican party of this country and by the Republican conference of
this House.”
are offering their comments and some of them I agree with and they all deserve
to be read, but not to be shredded at the hands of a November campaign strategy
by the Republican party of this country and by the Republican conference of
this House.”
And here is a
statement released by Miller and other Republicans on the House Committee on
Administration, which Miller chairs:
statement released by Miller and other Republicans on the House Committee on
Administration, which Miller chairs:
“Our federal government should never be in the
business of limiting guaranteed First Amendment rights. Yet the IRS’
proposed regulations would, if adopted, restrict speech and influence the
outcome of elections. Rather than merely clarifying existing law, the
proposed regulations would significantly expand the agency’s role in
restricting the ability of 501(c)(4)s organizations to engage in political
activity. We cannot allow the expansion of the IRS’ position as a
regulator of political speech.
business of limiting guaranteed First Amendment rights. Yet the IRS’
proposed regulations would, if adopted, restrict speech and influence the
outcome of elections. Rather than merely clarifying existing law, the
proposed regulations would significantly expand the agency’s role in
restricting the ability of 501(c)(4)s organizations to engage in political
activity. We cannot allow the expansion of the IRS’ position as a
regulator of political speech.
“The IRS has a long
and troubling history of targeting political opponents of the Administration
with its vast enforcement power. Additionally, imposing a new set of
regulations on political activity months before an election further lends the
appearance of a politically motivated decision behind the rulemaking.
and troubling history of targeting political opponents of the Administration
with its vast enforcement power. Additionally, imposing a new set of
regulations on political activity months before an election further lends the
appearance of a politically motivated decision behind the rulemaking.
“The Federal Election
Commission was created to regulate political speech, and avoids partisan
manipulation by being structured to prevent one party from controlling its
decisions. The IRS lacks that partisan protection and all too often
throughout its history the IRS has been used by those who are in power in the
Administration as a political tool against those who are not.
Commission was created to regulate political speech, and avoids partisan
manipulation by being structured to prevent one party from controlling its
decisions. The IRS lacks that partisan protection and all too often
throughout its history the IRS has been used by those who are in power in the
Administration as a political tool against those who are not.
“The last thing that
should happen is to expand the scope of political activity subject to
regulations by the IRS – precisely what the agency’s proposed regulations would
do.
should happen is to expand the scope of political activity subject to
regulations by the IRS – precisely what the agency’s proposed regulations would
do.
“We cannot allow the
expansion of the IRS’ role in the regulation of political activity and give
them carte blanch authority to drive our nation’s political conversation,
especially given the recent scandal involving the agency’s improper targeting
of ideologically conservative groups.
expansion of the IRS’ role in the regulation of political activity and give
them carte blanch authority to drive our nation’s political conversation,
especially given the recent scandal involving the agency’s improper targeting
of ideologically conservative groups.
“We urge the IRS to,
at a minimum, delay their proposed regulations respective effective dates until
after the elections, and no sooner than January 1, 2015. These
proposed regulations are rooted in the belief that social welfare activity does
not include political activity. But one can think of few activities
intended more clearly to promote the general welfare of the United States than
engaging in the political process.”
at a minimum, delay their proposed regulations respective effective dates until
after the elections, and no sooner than January 1, 2015. These
proposed regulations are rooted in the belief that social welfare activity does
not include political activity. But one can think of few activities
intended more clearly to promote the general welfare of the United States than
engaging in the political process.”
"What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun."
Ecclesiastes 1:9
In “Power to Destroy: The Political Uses of the IRS from Kennedy to Nixon,” author John A. Andrew III presents new evidence for what he calls “the utilization of the Internal Revenue Service in what became a covert effort to discredit the right and undercut its sources of support” as part of “a broad assault on the right wing by the Kennedy administration.”
Although the charge that the Kennedy administration used the IRS to harass its critics has turned up before in books such as Victor Lasky’s “It Didn’t Start With Watergate,” According to his friend and colleague David Schuyler, a professor of American studies at Franklin & Marshall who edited the book, Andrew was for years chairman of the Lancaster City Democratic Committee. “The Other Side of the Sixties,” described the rise of conservative groups such as Young Americans for Freedom, And it was through researching that book in the mid-1990s that Andrew first heard about conservative groups being harassed by the IRS under Kennedy and, to some extent, Lyndon B. Johnson. The new book, published by Ivan R. Dee, the prestigious Chicago publisher of serious nonfiction, draws on old and new material to show the lengths Kennedy went to crush his opponents.
“He (Kennedy) was really a very charged political animal, and he didn’t brook opposition, and he’d use whatever tools he could to go after them,” said Schuyler, who also describes himself as a liberal Democrat. “I think [Kennedy and Nixon] were probably much more alike in terms of their personalities than most people realized. They were ruthless achievers trying to get ahead at whatever the cost.”
And Andrew found that the IRS was one of Kennedy’s first priorities. “During the Kennedy administration … officials screened all key IRS appointees for political loyalty,” Andrew wrote. “Being a Democrat was not always sufficient; appointees also had to be loyal to the administration.” Within the first week of his presidency, Kennedy appointed a new IRS commissioner: Mortimer Caplin, who had been a professor at the University of Virginia and who taught JFK’s brothers Ted and Robert, the latter by then attorney general.
After Nixon became President, he followed suit, and used the IRS as a weapon. Nixon also paid minimal taxes himself, and NO STATE INCOME TAXES while President. Nixon, after an IRS "audit," crowed in Press Releases to the Wall Street Journal that he had been cleared of any wrong doing. This was just after Vice President Spiro T. Agnew. became involved in a separate scandal. In August 1973 the news broke that since April the Justice Department's federal prosecutor in Baltimore had been conducting an investigation into bribery and extortion in 1967 and 1968 while Agnew was governor of Maryland (WSJ, Aug. 7, 1973). Agnew was charged with tax fraud for failing to report the bribes on his tax returns. Agnew criticized the charges, calling them "damned lies" (WSJ, Aug. 9, 1973).
Here is what Nixon, a multi-millionaire paid in taxes as reported by the WSJ on December 10, 1073:
Adjusted Gross Federal Income
Year Income Tax
1969 $328,161 $72,682
1970 $262,942 $792
1971 $262,384 $878
1972 $268,777 $4,298
Nothing new. Same old corrupt manipulations by the same old corrupt and intellectually dishonest political parties. Nixon had sold 80% of his $1.5 million dollar estate in San Clemente California to friend BeBe Rebozo, and wrote the proceeds off against the basis.
Of course, Ron Paul proposed to dissolve the IRS, so that weapon would no longer exist, but he was pronounced as "un-electable" by the mainstream media that is also controlled by – you guessed it – the two major political parties. So, JFK, Nixon, Obama and the IRS wrong doing is "nothing new."