News, Entertainment, Enlightenment
Douglas Shulman, who was IRS commissioner during the Obama’s first term, visited the White House 118 times just in 2010 and 2011.
His successor, Steven Miller, also visited “numerous” times.
The IRS commissioner is a managerial position, not a policy one.
Mark Everson, who was IRS commission for most of the Bush II Administration, visited but once.
We should be very scared about what this administration is capable of doing.
Why did the IRS investigate Tea Party groups but no establishment Republican groups? Just throwing it out there to give you something to think about on sleepless nights.
Fight feudalism.
Tea Partiers Picket IRS — IRS offices nationwide were picketed today by tea party groups in protest of the Obama Administration use of nation’s powerful tax enforcement agency to punish its political opponents. Here is some of the contingent outside the Delaware County, Pa. office in the Rose Tree Corporate Center at 1400 N. Providence Road, Media, in Upper Providence Township.
A protest against the politically oppressive actions of President Obama’s IRS has been scheduled for noon, tomorrow, outside the local IRS office at 1400 N. Providence Road, Media, Pa. 19063 (Upper Providence Township)
Reader Carol K reports that CatholicVote.org is also one of the Obama opponents that was subjected to harassment and intimidation by our government, which occurred in July 2009.
From a letter from the organization:
The recent revelations concerning the illegal actions by the IRS targeting conservative groups compel me to speak out.
In July 2009, the Chicago IRS office threatened the CatholicVote.org Education Fund.
The CV Education Fund is our 501(c)3 tax-exempt entity, created to educate, inspire and mobilize Catholic voters. As you may know, 501(c)3 charities, unlike our sister org (CatholicVote.org, a 501c4 organization) are not permitted to intervene in any political campaign or to oppose or support any political candidate.
We never did.
But according to the IRS, an unnamed source provided them information, including an email that we distributed prior to the 2008 election, which prompted their ‘examination.’
The email in question was titled “Barack Obama on the Issues of Importance to Catholics” and it specifically disclaimed any endorsement or approval of any political candidate.
In fact, our email did not even offer our position! Instead, we used actual Obama press releases and news stories to provide voters information on his positions on the issues of “abortion, stem cell research, contraceptives, and gay marriage.”
We urged voters to gather the facts, and ended our email with this line: “Let’s have an informed electorate on Tuesday.”
For this, we received a lengthy letter with over 50 questions asking for everything from how many people are on our email list, bank account names, and our checking account numbers.
Yes, even our checking account numbers!
To properly respond to the IRS, we were forced to divert staff time and precious resources to pay for legal counsel. Over a period of weeks, we provided the IRS everything they asked for.
But we didn’t stop there.
As a part of our response, we cited the IRS code, which explicitly states that charities like ours are permitted to reach the public with a ‘pure issue message.’ Nothing in the law prohibits organizations like ours from informing voters about the positions taken by candidates for public office. Our 501(c)3 entity has never endorsed, supported or expressly advocated the election or defeat of ANY political candidate.
We argued that the IRS code is vague and standardless, and that no objective standard exists to regulate what might or might not constitute political intervention – thus opening the door to abuse. We told the IRS that groups like ours should not be subjected to arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.
If they chose to fine us, we were prepared to sue.
The IRS ultimately chose to do nothing – they backed down.
Why is this important? Because the IRS scandal brewing in Washington D.C. suggests that their examination of the CatholicVote.org Education Fund could have been politically motivated.
Were we targeted for our political views? Who and what prompted the IRS to investigate us?
Did their investigation have anything to do with our “Imagine the Potential” viral video celebrating the gift of life, including the choice for life made by Barack Obama’s mother that was watched by millions of people? This video was released 5 months before we were investigated and received national attention including coverage on the front page of the Washington Post website.
Was the IRS investigation intended to intimidate us, or have a chilling effect on our future plans?
We may never know. But we are going to do our best to find out. Reluctantly, we have decided to retain counsel to evaluate the IRS’ conduct and determine whether we can take action to fight back against this abuse of power. We want to know who induced the IRS to come after us, or whether that was a pretext, and whether the IRS or any government agency was attempting to thwart our lawful issue advocacy.
This is America. Something must be done to fight back. What we are witnessing in Washington is disgusting and shameful. We are better than this. Those responsible should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.
Thankfully we have thick skin, and some top-notch attorneys.
You can chip in to support our effort here.
But at least now you know.
And you deserve to know that we will always defend our right to speak the truth, and to provide you and every Catholic in America the resources they need to vote with an informed conscience.
Thank you, as always, for your ongoing support and prayers.
Sincerely,
Brian Burch, Director
CatholicVote.org Education Fund
Sen. Pat Toomey has queried the Obama administration about two grave abuses of abuses of power committed during its watch.
A letter sent to the President notes that the in 2010 IRS “specialists had been asked to be on the lookout for Tea Party
applications, and the IRS Determinations Unit had begun searching its
database for applications with ‘Tea Party,’ ‘Patriots,’ or ‘9/12’ in the
organization’s name” and that this practice was “well-known” in the agency.
He has also sent a letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius regarding reports that she solicited funds from health care executives to assist with the implementation of the president’s health law.
“This appears at best to be an inherent conflict of interest and, at worst, a potentially illegal augmentation of appropriation,” he said.
Here is Toomey’s letter to President Obama:
Dear Mr. President:
We are writing to express our grave concerns and deep disappointment about the revelations in a report by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) had specifically targeted certain organizations for extra scrutiny as part of their approval review of applications for tax-exempt 501(c)(4) status. This appears to be a wholly inappropriate action that threatens to silence political dissent and brings partisan politics into what used to be a nonpartisan, unbiased and fact-based review process. The public’s confidence in the IRS relies on fair and apolitical application of the law. Actions such as these undermine taxpayers’ ability to trust its government to fairly implement the law.
According to information given to Congress in a timeline provided by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA), in early 2010 “specialists had been asked to be on the lookout for Tea Party applications, and the IRS Determinations Unit had begun searching its database for applications with ‘Tea Party,’ ‘Patriots,’ or ‘9/12’ in the organization’s name.” The report goes on to state that “By June 2011, some IRS specialists were probing applications using the following criteria to identify tea-party cases, according to the Treasury inspector general findings: “‘Tea Party,’ ‘Patriots’ or ‘9/12 Project’ is referenced in the case file; issues include government spending, government debt or taxes; education of the public by advocacy/lobbying to ‘make America a better place to live’; statements in the case file criticize how the country is being run.”
We are deeply disturbed that agents of the government were directed to give greater scrutiny to groups engaged in conduct questioning the actions of their government. This type of purely political scrutiny being conducted by an Executive Branch Agency is yet another completely inexcusable attempt to chill the speech of political opponents and those who would question their government, consistent with a broader pattern of intimidation by arms of your administration to silence political dissent.
These disclosures are even more unsettling as they contradict prior statements made by representatives of the Administration on this matter. In response to questions raised in 2012 on this issue by Republican Senators, Steven T. Miller, the Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement at the IRS, specifically (and falsely) stated that there was an unbiased, technical screening process used to determine which applications for 501(c)(4) organizations merited further review. In two separate letters to Finance Committee Ranking Member Orin Hatch, Mr. Miller failed to note that explicitly political screens were used in reviewing applications, despite the fact the practice was apparently well known within the IRS as early as 2010.
Given these strong and clear statements by the Administration in 2012 that no such targeted review or specified politically motivated criteria existed, these revelations raise serious questions about the entire application review process, and the controls in place at the IRS to stop this sort of political interference once and for all. According to TIGTA these actions took place more than two years ago, yet without this information becoming public, there is no evidence that your administration would have done anything to make sure these abuses were brought to light and dealt with in a transparent way.
The American people deserve to know what actions will be taken to ensure those who made these policy decisions at the IRS are being held fully accountable and more importantly what is being done to ensure that this kind of raw partisanship is fully eliminated from these critically important non-partisan government functions. As such, we demand that your Administration comply with all requests related to Congressional inquiries without any delay, including making available all IRS employees involved in designing and implementing these prohibited political screening, so that the public has a full accounting of these actions. It is imperative that the Administration be fully forthcoming to ensure that we begin to restore the confidence of our fellow citizens after this blatant violation of their trust. We look forward to working on this critical issue with the Administration’s full cooperation.
Here is Toomey’s letter to Secretary Sebelius:
Dear Secretary Sebelius:
As the Republican Members of the Senate
Committee on Finance, one of the key committees of jurisdiction over
health care issues, we were troubled by the news reports concerning your
interactions with health care industry executives asking for donations
of money to assist with funding for enrollment efforts related to the
health care insurance exchanges. Our initial reaction is that this
appears at best to be an inherent conflict of interest and at worst a
potentially illegal augmentation of appropriation.
These calls raise several important issues.
First, soliciting funds from the very companies or organizations that
the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) regulates could be a
serious conflict of interest. Companies and organizations should never
be pressured for money because it sends the message that contributions
are necessary to secure favorable regulatory decisions-creating a “pay
to play” environment-or to avoid regulatory reprisals. This is even more
pronounced in this instance because the individuals that you were
allegedly contacting to solicit donations head up the same entities who
may have bid to participate in the marketplace exchanges.
Secondly, the appropriations process was
designed by the Constitution to assure that only Congress, an elected
body, sets the amount of funds that can be spent to implement a given
law. Congress appropriated a certain amount of funds for use by HHS to
implement the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA).
Circumventing the appropriations process to raise additional funds could
be a serious violation of appropriations law.
Finally, the manner in which Congress
learned about these actions, through the press, is also troubling. One
of the continued issues that has been raised to HHS from this Committee
over the past three years has been the lack of transparency from HHS to
Congress about what actions are being taken, and when, with respect to
implementation of PPACA. This is yet another example of the
Administration initiating actions without consulting with or informing
Congress ahead of time.
To help us better understand this issue, please provide us with answers to the following questions:
1. What legal authority permits HHS employees to solicit donations from non-government entities for PPACA implementation?
2. Who within HHS was involved in making the decision to contact private entities for donations?
3. Was the Office of General Counsel for HHS consulted and, if so, what guidance did they provide governing these interactions?
4.
Besides Secretary Sebelius, have any other HHS employees solicited
donations in their official capacity as a federal employee?
5. How much money has been raised by HHS for the implementation of PPACA through donations?
a. Is the money coming directly to HHS or is it going elsewhere?
b. If to HHS, in which account(s) were the funds deposited?
c. What agency, individual, or entity has fiduciary authority over the funds?
d. Of the donated funds, how much has been spent by HHS or other entities to date?
e. Who has donated funds?
f. If funds are donated, do the donators have the right to say which programs the funding goes toward?
6. How much money has been raised by HHS employees for other entities supporting enrollment under PPACA?
7. Have HHS employees solicited donations on behalf of any nonprofit organization? If so, which one(s) and how much
8. How many federally funded work hours were used by Secretary Sebelius and other HHS employees to solicit donations?
9.
What assurances do organizations and companies that elected not to
donate funds have that HHS would not retaliate against them in future
regulatory or contracting actions?
10. Conversely, what measures has
HHS taken to be sure that it has not favored organizations that have
donated funds? What audit or oversight mechanisms are in place to
ensure that the list of those who have provided funds is not seen by the
contracting or program employees making decisions about contract awards
and/or other determinations regarding participation in the exchanges?
We appreciate your timely response to this
request and your full cooperation in providing this information by no
later than June 7, 2013.
— articles of impeachment drawn up against Richard Nixon, 1973
Hat tip Michael King
In a rather peculiar and ill-timed statement issued this past Friday, a mid-level IRS administrator publicly admitted that the agency has been harassing Tea Party and Patriot groups who filed for 501c tax-exempt status by forcing them to undergo additional burdensome scrutiny above and beyond the standard application process.
As many news outlets reported, IRS intimidation of conservative groups has been ongoing since 2010.
None of this is news to the Independence Hall Tea Party Association.
Due to our concerns over the Obama Administration’s control of the IRS, the Association decided not to file for tax exempt status. In addition, unlike most Tea Party groups across the nation, we formed a federal PAC to handle political endorsements and activities–thereby making it less likely that we would become potential government targets.
However, a left-wing, anarchist group called Anonymous did manage to hack into both of our websites during the 2012 primary–taking over the sites for a 24-hour period and posting pornographic images/racial slurs on our home page.
We believe the Anonymous attacks were directly related to our hosting an event with Governor Mitt Romney at the Franklin Institute in which we refused to admit members of Occupy who were threatening to disrupt the Governor’s speech.
(Because of our limited resources, both the Association and the PAC decided only to report the matter to local authorities and to focus our efforts, instead, on our respective educational and political missions.)
As for the IRS, the Association, like everyone else, is waiting for the Inspector General’s full report–which is expected early this week.
The Inspector General’s report, we insist, should signal the beginning of a more thorough investigation–not the last word on this highly explosive scandal.
(Ms. Adams is president of the Independence Tea Party Association.)