10 thoughts on “The IRSs “Equal Treatment Of Liberals And Conservatives””

  1. What if there are more conservative groups total? That chart gives no information on targettings per group.

      1. It would be helpful to know what fraction of liberal groups were “targeted”, and what fraction of conservative groups. It’d also be helpful to know what the chart means by targeting, and why the legend refers to 501c3 applications when the scandal is supposedly about 501c4 applications.

        But hey, if a House Republican draws a 3d graph with a big red column why then the scandal must be real!

  2. I haven’t done a study but I would wager there are far more Democrat groups because they dig agitation, lawfare, protesting, and subverting institutions.

    1. On the other hand, liberal groups are far more likely to be affiliated with some larger umbrella group, essenmtially making them “chapters” or “subsidiaries” of, say, OFA. Which would certainly make a politically motivated double standard easier to put in place with a minimum of pushback from within the agency.

      1. I remember writing a grant for a progressive radio station back in college and the network of activist groups behind the effort was astounding. It wasn’t just the groups behind the radio station but also the ones providing grants.

  3. According to this article, it’s still happening:

    A transcript of the interview with a Cincinnati-based IRS employee was released today by Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp (R-MI) and Oversight Subcommittee Chairman Charles Boustany Jr., M.D. (R-LA) in a letter calling on IRS Acting Commissioner Daniel Werfel to immediately cease the IRS’s apparent continued practice of targeting Tea Party applications based on name alone:

    Q: “If you saw – I am asking this currently, if today a Tea Party case, a group – a case from a Tea Party group came in to your desk, you received the file and there was no evidence of political activity, would you potentially approve that case? Is that something you would do?”

    A:” At this point I would sent it to secondary screening, political advocacy.”

    Q: “So, you would treat a Tea Party group as a political advocacy case even if there was no evidence of political activity on the application. Is that right?”

    A: “Based on my current manager’s direction, uh-huh.”

    1. Makes it hard to claim that the program was not approved by the white house and/or the head of the IRS.

    2. What is wrong with treating a Tea Party group as a political advocacy organization? Isn’t that exactly what they are?

      1. Jim, because Democrats groups like Obama’s former campaign turned political advocacy group are not treated the same way.

        Everyone deserves the same privileges that Democrat activist groups enjoy.

        The fact that the persecution continues to this very day shows complicity by not only the IRS but Obama himself.

Comments are closed.