[plurple]

It’s not just this administration. The Lois Lerner fiasco happened during the previous administration. I think the IRS has been corrupt for a long time without any help. Ken Corbin, the person in charge of this filing nonsense, is a 27 year employee of the IRS.

[pstuart]

Every administration has its share of corruption. This one has it deeply embedded and comes from the very top. I welcome refutations from supporters of the current administration.

[torstenvl]

Let's be perfectly clear: there was no Lois Lerner fiasco. A massive number of 501(c)(4) organizations started forming with (typically right-leaning) political names, despite the fact that 501(c)(4) organizations aren't allowed to operate as PACs, because "the net earnings of which [must be] devoted exclusively to charitable, educational, or recreational purposes." 26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(4) available at https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/501.

This phenomenon was much more common among Tea Party groups and libertarians (many of whom fundamentally dispute the legitimacy of the tax code) than among paleoconservatives, neoconservatives, or any brand of liberal or progressive. See generally Jᴀɴᴇ Mᴀʏᴇʀ, Dᴀʀᴋ Mᴏɴᴇʏ: Tʜᴇ Hɪᴅᴅᴇɴ Hɪsᴛᴏʀʏ ᴏғ ᴛʜᴇ Bɪʟʟɪᴏɴᴀɪʀᴇs Bᴇʜɪɴᴅ ᴛʜᴇ Rɪsᴇ ᴏғ ᴛʜᴇ Rᴀᴅɪᴄᴀʟ Rɪɢʜᴛ (2016).

Having a 501(c)(4) with a political term like "Tea Party" in the name is per se probable cause for an investigation. The ability to spin that into some kind of partisan witch hunt was a major propaganda victory. This was conduct by principally one side of the political spectrum, and the IRS had no more an obligation to treat the parties equally than the ATF does when investigating Second Amendment fringe groups or the DEA does when investigating head shops or the FBI does when investigating eco-terrorism.

TLDR: If you don't want to be investigated for unlawfully using your non-profit for political purposes, maybe don't put political terms in the name of your non-profit.

[sokoloff]

> Having a 501(c)(4) with a political term like "Tea Party" in the name is per se probable cause for an investigation.

It is perhaps reasonable suspicion (at most) but I can’t see how it’s per-se probable cause.

Imagine a cause that you support instead. Would you want Alabama to be able to treat any charity with “Family Planning” or “Pride” in it standing alone to be probable cause for the authorities?

[thenewnewguy]

Is this a serious argument? It seems very obvious to me that "Tea Party" has very few (if any) other reasonable interpretations than a political party, while "Family Planning" and "Pride" have many possible non-political uses.

[sokoloff]

https://www.bostonteapartyship.com/

https://www.amazon.com/Set-Mini-Porcelain-Basket-Pink-Design...

Probable cause is a moderately high standard in law. One’s name alone should not make for probable cause.

[pstuart]

> the IRS had no more an obligation to treat the parties equally than the ATF does when investigating Second Amendment fringe groups or the DEA does when investigating head shops or the FBI does when investigating eco-terrorism

Oooh, that's a bingo!

[plurple]

Then Lois Lerner shouldn’t have had any reason to plead the fifth repeatedly if she hadn’t done anything incriminating.

[torstenvl]

I'm sorry, but I think you must fundamentally misunderstand the right against self-incrimination if you believe that invoking it is, in and of itself, incriminating. Cf. "you don't need privacy if you have nothing to hide."

[kortilla]

> Having a 501(c)(4) with a political term like

That’s the issue. Choosing which names are “political” is a political action in itself. How often were names investigated that mentioned “environment”, “social”, etc?

The Sierra club is extremely political and the name indicates nothing.

Unless these investigations were all equally applied to orgs regardless of name, your argument holds no water.