[EL] News Analysis: Substantial Minority of Scrutinized EOs Were Not Conservative
Michael P McDonald
mmcdon at gmu.edu
Thu Jun 6 22:13:20 PDT 2013
When this story first broke, there were claims that all organizations with conservative sounding names and agendas were unfairly "targeted." That claim has been proven false now that we know a good number of liberal groups engaged in political activity were also scrutinized. Mistakes were made, but there is no indication those mistakes were politically motivated. This is what the IRS "admitted" and is supported by the IG.
We also heard how only conservative groups were given the lengthy questionnaire, and that claim has proven false. And we heard how conservative groups had to wait a long time for their applications to be approved, and while true, we have learned that liberal organizations were denied their applications while no conservative groups were. Which is worse, a delay or denial? There is also reporting that some conservative organizations claimed on their application that they were primarily a social welfare organization, and then devoted nearly all their resources to political activities, while the IRS turned a blind eye. That is to say, that some conservative organizations might have merited denial, or might now merit another review. Imagine the uproar if that happened, even if justified. The system was broken, and now it is probably fatally so.
So, yes, I know that all organizations with the keywords were reviewed. My continued question is whether or not the organizations were engaged in political activity that would have merited a review in the first place, and if we can determine if the review rates were unequal for liberal and conservative groups. Keyword search aside, did all organizations -- conservative and liberal -- reviewed merit review? Were they engaged in political activity? So far, at every turn as my questions are answered, the claims about unfair targeting continue to be chipped away.
I will also say that I am still not convinced yet that the IRS should be exonerated on the question of partisan mischief. I'd like to see my question fully answered before I am satisfied. I think conservatives are correct to question what happened. But, when you have people like Rep. Issa and FOX News overplaying their hand, this affair has played out as many, including myself, thought it would: a devolution into partisanship without a hope of finding a real solution to the underlying problem of the IRS making judgments about the degree of political activity of a social welfare organization.
============
Dr. Michael P. McDonald
Associate Professor
George Mason University
4400 University Drive - 3F4
Fairfax, VA 22030-4444
phone: 703-993-4191 (office)
e-mail: mmcdon at gmu.edu
web: http://elections.gmu.edu
twitter: @ElectProject
-----Original Message-----
From: David Keating [mailto:dkeating at campaignfreedom.org]
Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2013 11:13 PM
To: Michael P McDonald; law-election at UCI.edu
Subject: RE: [EL] News Analysis: Substantial Minority of Scrutinized EOs Were Not Conservative
Please read the report. The extended review rate (it was not an audit) was 100% for such groups.
>From page 8 of TIGTA's report, which the IRS does not deny:
"we determined during our reviews of statistical samples of I.R.C. § 501(c)(4) tax-exempt applications that all cases with Tea Party, Patriots, or 9/12 in their names were forwarded to the team of specialists."
Note it says ALL CASES.
And as Bill points out, these cases essentially sat, unapproved.
Page 11 of the report says "As of December 17, 2012, many organizations had not received an approval or denial letter for more than two years after they submitted their applications. Some cases have been open during two election cycles (2010 and 2012)."
I don't get why some people think there is any equivalence. It is not even close.
Do some IRS agents wrongly subject liberal groups for scrutiny? Of course. But nothing has come to light of criteria developed on other issues to screen 100% of other applications.
David
_________________________________________________
David Keating | President | Center for Competitive Politics
124 S. West Street, Suite 201 | Alexandria, VA 22314
703-894-6799 (direct) | 703-894-6800 | 703-894-6811 Fax www.campaignfreedom.org
-----Original Message-----
From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Michael P McDonald
Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2013 7:07 PM
To: law-election at UCI.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] News Analysis: Substantial Minority of Scrutinized EOs Were Not Conservative
Since there is a wide range of claims about what the IRS did, it would be worthwhile to contribute to a discussion worthy of a former member of the FEC and a distinguished law professor, to know what Brad thinks the IRS has admitted to rather than try to divine it from one sentence snark.
I have been clear that I think the IRS was stupid to use a politically charged search term to flag applications, but that this does not mean that conservative groups were unfairly flagged by the IRS. This is what I believe the IRS has admitted to, and the linked story has a number of quotes to this effect. The evidence that has been brought to light supports the IRS. Bloomberg reported that while no conservative groups were denied their applications, liberal groups were given the same questionnaire and were even denied status. And now we have a clearer picture that a number of liberal groups were given heightened scrutiny along with conservative groups.
Still, this is insufficient evidence that the IRS was just stupid. We need to know the "audit" rate of liberal groups and conservative groups to know if conservative groups were unfairly flagged for attention. And since I cannot prove a negative, it is always possible that there was true politically motivated malfeasance. But no such evidence has come to light yet.
============
Dr. Michael P. McDonald
Associate Professor
George Mason University
4400 University Drive - 3F4
Fairfax, VA 22030-4444
phone: 703-993-4191 (office)
e-mail: mmcdon at gmu.edu
web: http://elections.gmu.edu
twitter: @ElectProject
-----Original Message-----
From: Smith, Brad [mailto:BSmith at law.capital.edu]
Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2013 6:32 PM
To: Trevor Potter
Cc: Michael P McDonald; law-election at UCI.edu
Subject: RE: [EL] News Analysis: Substantial Minority of Scrutinized EOs Were Not Conservative
Admission against interest. Thanks for playing.
Bradley A. Smith
Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault
Professor of Law
Capital University Law School
303 E. Broad St.
Columbus, OH 43215
614.236.6317
http://law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.aspx
________________________________________
From: Trevor Potter [tpotter at capdale.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2013 5:35 PM
To: Smith, Brad
Cc: Michael P McDonald; law-election at UCI.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] News Analysis: Substantial Minority of Scrutinized EOs Were Not Conservative
Brad
I thought you did not trust what the IRS says, and would therefore support an outside more in depth analysis, no matter where the chips fall?
Trevor Potter
Sent from my iPad
On Jun 6, 2013, at 4:39 PM, "Smith, Brad" <BSmith at law.capital.edu> wrote:
> Meanwhile, some people continue to deny that the IRS did what the IRS has already admitted.
>
> Bradley A. Smith
>
> Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault
>
> Professor of Law
>
> Capital University Law School
>
> 303 E. Broad St.
>
> Columbus, OH 43215
>
> 614.236.6317
>
> http://law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.aspx
>
> ________________________________________
> From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
> [law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] on behalf of Michael P
> McDonald [mmcdon at gmu.edu]
> Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2013 1:22 PM
> To: law-election at UCI.edu
> Subject: Re: [EL] News Analysis: Substantial Minority of Scrutinized
> EOs Were Not Conservative
>
> Correction, I read this too hastily, this analysis just shows that a good number of left groups were scrutinized. We know from previous posts that no right group was denied status, but left groups were.
>
> And to also be fair to the author, the report also notes that we need more data on all the applications.
>
> ============
> Dr. Michael P. McDonald
> Associate Professor
> George Mason University
> 4400 University Drive - 3F4
> Fairfax, VA 22030-4444
>
> phone: 703-993-4191 (office)
> e-mail: mmcdon at gmu.edu
> web: http://elections.gmu.edu
> twitter: @ElectProject
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
> [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of
> Michael P McDonald
> Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2013 1:11 PM
> To: law-election at UCI.edu
> Subject: [EL] News Analysis: Substantial Minority of Scrutinized EOs
> Were Not Conservative
>
> Martin Sullivan's analysis shows that more liberal groups were denied 501c4 tax exempt status by the IRS than conservative groups.
>
> http://www.taxanalysts.com/www/features.nsf/Articles/D2A6C735EAFA7A908
> 5257B7B004C0D90
>
> This is an important part of the puzzle that demonstrates conservative organizations were not unfairly targeted by the IRS. But, we still do not know from this analysis if the audit rate for conservative groups was higher than liberal groups. We have to look at all ~60,000 applications for that information.
>
> ============
> Dr. Michael P. McDonald
> Associate Professor
> George Mason University
> 4400 University Drive - 3F4
> Fairfax, VA 22030-4444
>
> phone: 703-993-4191 (office)
> e-mail: mmcdon at gmu.edu
> web: http://elections.gmu.edu
> twitter: @ElectProject
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
<- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -> To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that, unless specifically indicated otherwise, any tax advice contained in this communication (including any
attachments) was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax-related penalties under the Internal Revenue Code, or (ii) promoting, marketing, or recommending to another party any tax-related matter addressed herein.
This message is for the use of the intended recipient only. It is from a law firm and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient any disclosure, copying, future distribution, or use of this communication is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please advise us by return e-mail, or if you have received this communication by fax advise us by telephone and delete/destroy the document.
<-->
_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
View list directory