Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
I actually doubt that Obama was directly involved in directing the IRS to focus on conservative non-profits.

I'd expect it was more like Henry IIs apocryphal "Can no one rid me of this turbulent priest?" comment that ended in the assassination of Thomas Becket. Some staffers heard him comment about possible problems with Tea Party groups in the 2012 elections, and decided to make the problems go away for him.


"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by reaverfan:
Or, maybe the IRS was swamped with lots of teanderthals applying for non-profit status with rather sketchy rules.

Keep crying wolf, though. You're making Obama more popular with every wasted effort!

---

Quote:

---

“But between 2010 and 2012, we started seeing a very big uptick in the number of 501(c)(4) applications we were receiving, and many of these organizations applying more than doubled, about 1500 in 2010 and over 3400 in 2012.”

Lerner made this comment while issuing a seemingly impromptu apology at an American Bar Association panel. (It was later learned that this was a planted question — more on that below.) In her telling, the tax-exempt branch was simply overwhelmed by applications, and so unfortunate shortcuts were taken.

But this claim of “more than doubled” appears to be a red herring. The targeting of groups began in early 2010, after the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. FEC was announced on Jan. 21. The ruling led to increased interest in a tax-exempt status known as 501(c)(4). Most charities apply under 501(c)(3), but under 501(c)(4), nonprofit groups that engage in “social welfare” can also perform a limited amount of election activity.

At first glance, the inspector general’s report appears to show that the number of 501(c)(4) applications actually went down that year, from 1,751 in 2009 to 1,735.

But it turns out that these are federal fiscal-year figures, meaning “2010” is actually Oct. 1, 2009 to Sept. 30, 2010, so the “2010” year includes more than three months before the Supreme Court decision was announced.

Astonishingly, despite Lerner’s public claim, an IRS spokeswoman was not able to provide the actual calendar year numbers. By allocating one-quarter of the fiscal year numbers to the prior year, we can get a very rough sense of the increase on a calendar-year basis. (Figures are rounded to avoid false precision; 2012 is not possible to calculate.)

2009: 1745

2010: 1865

2011: 2540

In other words, while there was an increase in 2010, it was relatively small. The real jump did not come until 2011, long after the targeting of conservative groups had been implemented. Also, it appears Lerner significantly understated the number of applications in 2010 (“1500”) in order to make her claim of “more than doubled.”

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Tea Party favorability up 14% since IRS scandal in latest national Rasmussen Poll. Donations and membership surging as well.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by HKCavalier:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Tea Party favorability up 14% since IRS scandal in latest national Rasmussen Poll. Donations and membership surging as well.

---

Well, at least now you're talking about the real point of Scandalpalooza. Best of luck in 2016 with all that money.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by HKCavalier:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Tea Party favorability up 14% since IRS scandal in latest national Rasmussen Poll. Donations and membership surging as well.

---

Well, at least now you're talking about the real point of Scandalpalooza. Best of luck in 2016 with all that money.

---

So the IRS targeting conservative non-profits and improperly disclosing their filings, and the Justice Department making broad sweeps of journalist's phone and email records is just fine with you?


"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

---