June 25, 2013

The story raises several issues.

One, the IRS was using improper criteria. It does not matter if it was using improper criteria for both the right and left. The criteria were improper.

Not for profit organization are allowed to educate the public about political issues.

501(c)(4) organizations may inform the public on controversial subjects and attempt to influence legislation relevant to its program[38] and, unlike 501(c)(3) organizations, they may also participate in political campaigns and elections, as long as its primary activity is the promotion of social welfare.[39] The tax exemption for 501(c)(4) organizations applies to most of their operations, but contributions may be subject to gift tax, and income spent on political activities - generally the advocacy of a particular candidate in an election - is taxable.[40] An "action" organization generally qualifies as a 501(c)(4) organization.[41] An "action" organization is one whose activities substantially include, or are exclusively,[42] direct lobbying or grass roots lobbying related to advocacy for or against legislation or proposing, supporting, or opposing legislation that is related to its purpose.[43] A 501(c)(4) organization may directly or indirectly support or oppose a candidate for public office as long as such activities are not a substantial amount of its activities.[32][44]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/501%28c%29_organization#501.28c.29.284.29

Two, Congress was lied to on more than one occasion when it tried to perform its oversight function.

Three, the WH gave the public the impression that the Acting Head of the IRS had been required to resign over this, when in fact, his so called resignation was to be effective on the date he was already set to retire.

Four, despite all the brouhaha, the IRS continued to use improper criteria until two weeks ago.

But, that all gets lost over whether the IRS treated the left as unlawfully as it treated the right.

Very discouraging.