It has already gone beyond "a few low-level guys trying to do what the law requires of them". Internal IRS audits and the IG investigation have already established that. That was the rational for Lois Lerner planting a question during her speech a few weeks ago. It was an effort to start a "controlled burn" before the shit hit the fan. It didn't work and now the facts are starting to trickle out.
I don't know what you're talking about because, honestly, I have very little interest in this whole story. But I will observe that it's frequently the coverup that gets people in more trouble than the original "crime."
The word "if" is like Atlas in that sentence...it's holding up the whole freakin' world on its shoulders.
Q# 25) Please explain your relationship with Justin Binik-Thomas. http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/24/irs-witch-hunt-targeted-ohio-educator-and-bystander/
Yesterday it was revealed the IRS leaked confidential donor lists to a group's political rivals. Anyone want to defend that behavior? Anyone? Bueller?
If it's a tax exempt group, the group cannot have political activity as its main purpose, so how can such a group have political rivals? If it is a political group, then they're not allowed to have confidential donor lists -- the donor list must be public.
In this case we are talking about 501(c)4 groups which can be involved in politics. In fact, the political rivals that received the confidential donor lists already enjoy the tax status that this group was seeking. Perhaps you and John should get better acquainted with details of the debate before defending the indefensible?
The story is that yesterday, someone from the National Organization of Marraige (NOM) stated in front of the House committee which is investigating this stuff, that their confidential donor list was published by the Human Rights Campaign. According to NOM's analysis of the document which was posted, it was provided to the HRC by the IRS. When asked if they had proof, the answer was "yes, we have proof". However, they did not provide said proof at the committee meeting. Link from Fox News (so you know it's fair and balanced) My reaction: prove it. Until you can show us the proof, you're like W talking about WMDs in Iraq -- we had "proof" for that too.
It came out during yesterday's testimony which was broadcast on CSPAN. I am sure you can find it via a google news search or even a clip on youtube.
Two Cincy staffers are now claiming that they were following orders issued from higher-ups in the Washington office. They might be lying, of course. But if not, then this is a legit story and a real problem for Obama.
But he said that a group can't have politics "as its main purpopse." With regard to 501(c)(4) organizations, that's essentially correct. They can participate in politics/campaigning for or against elected officials, but that can't be the primary purpose of the organization. The problem is that the rules regarding how much is too much aren't very clear with even different tax professors offering different conclusions.
You're playing legal semantics and ignoring the real issue here, whether or not confidential information provided on the 501(c)4 application was leaked to another group.
While I'm always up for some antics, no, I was pointing out that smurfquake's comment wasn't really wrong. Of course providing confidential info from tax forms should be sanctioned/prosecuted if it happened.
I think you're being to kind to the Smurf, he wasn't arguing that group was walking a fine line but rather that they deserved what they got. Either way, I'll concede your point.
Nobody here has argued that it is OK for the IRS to leak information about one group to another group. At the same time, nobody has proven that this actually happened.
OK, I did some more digging. The form in question is the IRS form 990, which is the equivalent of the 1040 for tax-exempt organizations. A redacted version of the Form 990 is public information -- you can go and file a freedom of information act request for an organization's public form 990. This version does not include the donor information. In March or April 2012, a copy of the unredacted 2008 Form 990 for the National Organization of Marriage (NOM) was provided to the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) by "a whistleblower". This one contained the donors. This document was gleefully published and shared with the world -- you can find a copy here at the Huffington Post. I fully support finding out who the "whistleblower" was who provided this confidential document to an external organization. That's bullshit and it shouldn't happen. The leaker should be prosecuted. This is not "whistleblowing" (stopping illegal activity by making it public) -- it's not illegal for a right wing organization to collect donations. There's no published evidence that this document was leaked by the IRS. The NOM claims that they have proof that it was done by the IRS, but they have not published said proof.
Perhaps you can clarify this statement then, because it sure as hell sounds to me like you are justifying the leak:
The statement is pretty self explanatory. If it is a political group, they need to release their donor lists. Perhaps the definition of "political group" is not clear -- the law says that if their primary purpose is politics, they have to publish their donors. What does that have to do with whether their donor list was leaked (possibly illegally)? There's no justification involved in the statement "If it is a political group, then they're not allowed to have confidential donor lists."
501(c)4 organizations DO NOT have to disclose their donors. That fact has already been pointed out to you.
But are they a valid 501(c)4 organization? What if they are actually primarily a political organization -- should they lose their 501(c)4 status and have to disclose their donors? Who gets to decide if they're a valid 501(c)4 organization or a political organization? Do we just have to take their word for it? Meanwhile, here's the former chairman of the National Organization for Marriage who explained how their form 990 got leaked. Mystery solved. Feel free to go after the low-level employee (Maggie Gallagher's description, not mine) and stamp out this outrageous infringement of this group's rights.