RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment

Boardman writes: "Whatever you hear about tax exempt, 501(c)(4) organizations these days, someone is probably playing politics, or simply lying (for the sake of playing politics). And even if you're not hearing about it, they're still lying about it."

House Ways and Means Committee chairman Rep. Dave Camp (R-Mi). (photo: AP)
House Ways and Means Committee chairman Rep. Dave Camp (R-Mi). (photo: AP)

The IRS "Scandal" Goes On

By William Boardman, Reader Supported News

26 February 14


It's not easy to keep a "scandal" going where there's no scandal

hatever you hear about tax exempt, 501(c)(4) organizations these days, someone is probably playing politics, or simply lying (for the sake of playing politics). And even if you're not hearing about it, they're still lying about it. This is all about bi-partisan deceit designed to defend the flow of dark money from secret donors.

The focal point of the "IRS scandal" these days is a new set of regulations announced by the IRS in November and currently open for public comments, which total more than 69,000 just days before the comment period is to close, on February 27.

In case you missed it, Republicans on the House Ways and Means Committee, led by Rep. Dave Camp of Michigan, have introduced a bill that would block any new regulations, and would also, in effect, make it against the law for the administration to follow the law. That's literally true. The proposed legislation, H.R.3865, has a fictional title: "Stop Targeting of Political Beliefs by the IRS Act of 2014" and really, who could be against that?

It would be like opposing the "Stop Brainwashing of Our Children by the Dept. of Education Act of 2012," which is an imaginary response to an equally imaginary threat. Just like the IRS targeting of political beliefs. Of course Imaginary threats can be more powerful than real ones sometimes, like those WMDs in Iraq that are still imaginary and still exploding people's heads at home and abroad more than a decade after their mushroom clouds were first inhaled.

More than 5,000 applications for 501(c)(4) status swamped the IRS by 2012

Before exploring H.R.3865 further, let's recall the reality of the IRS non-scandal of 2013, which continues to be widely misreported to this day (on February 13, the New York Times falsely described the essential issue as "heightened scrutiny the IRS gave to non-profit applications from Tea Party-affiliated groups" – never mind that it didn't happen, at least not at all like that).

The Supreme Court's 2010 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission unleashed huge amounts of previously dirty money into American politics, giving a lawful competitive advantage to everyone with money to burn. Not that those people were previously disadvantaged. They already had 527 organizations to take as much money as they had to give, but the 527s had the unfortunate legal requirement of having to report publicly who gave them money, and how much. And this was unfair to rich people who are shy about revealing the politicians they buy.

Citizens United also contributed to the rush to set up 501(c)(4) non-profit vehicles, which had the enticing additional option of being able to keep its donors secret. Citizens United, the organization, is itself a 501(c)(4) with a pretty clear political/ideological bias. The case it took to the Supreme Court began when it was prevented from running a documentary hit piece against Hillary Clinton in 2008. Now Citizens United is threatening another lawsuit should the IRS try to enact new rules controlling 501(c)(4) activities.

In other words, the fake IRS "scandal" was a very real part of a much larger Supreme Court scandal. Karl Rove was one of the first in a rising tide of 501(c)(4) applications during 2010-2012. According to reports, from roughly 1750 applications each in 2009 and 2010, the total rose to 2265 in 2011 and 3357 in 2012. The IRS was swamped and casting about for ways to triage the applications and handle them more efficiently. And there's the rub. That would have been easy under the original law, the Revenue Act of 1913, as codified in the U.S. Code, in its relevant entirety:

26 U.S.C., Title 26 Ch. 1, Part 1, sec. 501(c)(4)…. [Internal Revenue Code]

(4)(A) Civic leagues or organizations not organized for profit but operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare, or local associations of employees, the membership of which is limited to the employees of a designated person or persons in a particular municipality, and the net earnings of which are devoted exclusively to charitable, educational, or recreational purposes. [emphasis added]

(4)(B) Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to an entity unless no part of the net earnings of such entity inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual.

Just follow what the law says on its face – approve an entity "exclusively" for the enumerated purposes – and there's no problem at all. None. Follow the law, and NO organization with the slightest whiff of political activity is eligible. Such organizations are, by definition, excluded.

So what went wrong? In 1959, for reasons that remain obscure, the IRS decided to issue regulations that contradicted "exclusivity." The exact, fundamentally irreconcilable language the IRS adopted by regulation (the statute remained unchanged) created an impossible quandary for a regulator: "An organization is operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare if it is primarily engaged in promoting in some way the common good and general welfare of the people of the community."

How can anyone square that circle? For some reason 501(c)(4) organizations remained non-controversial for more than fifty years. And the controversy arose only because right-wing politically-engaged Tea Party groups in large numbers were trying to take advantage of a fundamental irrationality in tax regulations. There's a kind poetry in that, as these willful, would-be tax cheaters created an inflated, politicized, made-up problem that still obscures the real problem: trying to enforce incoherent law.

In June 2013, the Inspector General for Tax Administration reported that, of the 5,000 or so relevant cases, the IRS identified 298 as "potential political cases," less than 6 per cent of all cases. And for all the accusations hurled by Tea Party groups and their allies about unfair treatment, in the end, none of their applications – not a single one – was denied 501(c)(4) status by the IRS. Further underlining the political speciousness of the right-wing lie machine, IRS rules allow 501(c)(4) status to apply to anyone who CLAIMS it, whether they've applied yet or not.

Inspector general's behavior prompts call for investigation

Yes, the IRS inspector general identified 298 "political" cases (and a few others in grey areas) out of the 5000-plus reviewed – but of those 298, the inspector general found only 96 identified by "Tea Party," "9/12," or "Patriots," but did not identify the names attached to the other 202 "political" cases, thus blurring the apparent reality that Tea Party type groups, despite the overt political nature of their names, still represented only a minority of the "political" applications reviewed. The facts seem to suggest some even-handedness by the IRS, whatever tactical clumsiness it may have had in engaging a standard that had no reliable meaning.

The suspicious sloppiness of the inspector general's report, which fed the paranoid fantasies of the unpersecuted right, has contributed to a recently-filed ethics complaint against the inspector general himself. On February 5, two House Democrats – Gerry Connolly of Virginia and Matt Cartwright of Pennsylvania – filed a 22-page complaint prompted by the inspector general's having briefed only Republicans on aspects of the Affordable Care Act, as well as the inspector general's numerous meetings with congressional staffers on Republican Rep. Darrell Issa's staff, meetings from which Democrats were excluded.

The inspector general, who is a Republican and a former Congressional staffer, was criticized for the apparent bias of his report as soon as it was released. His report also omitted the fact that his staff had reviewed thousands of IRS emails and had found no hint of political motivation for the ISR procedures. Subsequent reports have reinforced the conclusion that the IRS did nor "target" or "single out" any particular political ideology in their efforts – which ended up approving every application.

The ethics complaint filed with the Integrity Committee of the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency (CIGIE) questions the inspector general's "independence, ethics, competence, and quality control." The Council, which includes members of the Office of Management and Budget and the FBI, has not announced a schedule for its investigation into the complaint.

FBI confirms lack of IRS wrongdoing. Right wing fumes.

The Wall Street Journal, reporting on January 13, continued to assert that the unproven "heightened scrutiny" was a reality:

"The Federal Bureau of Investigation doesn't plan to file criminal charges over the Internal Revenue Service's heightened scrutiny of conservative groups, law-enforcement officials said, a move that likely will only intensify debate over the politically charged scandal. The officials said investigators didn't find the kind of political bias or 'enemy hunting' that would amount to a violation of criminal law. Instead, what emerged during the probe was evidence of a mismanaged bureaucracy enforcing rules about tax-exemption applications it didn't understand…."

Clearly The Wall Street Journal doesn't understand, or doesn't want to understand, that in this instance, the "rules about tax-exemption" are not merely incomprehensible, but violate the underlying law. But the Journal story goes on for most of its length editorializing about its hopes that the continuing investigation will finally turn up something against someone.

Later the same day, Fox News pushed the surreality of the right's presumption of guilt by somebody somewhere a little harder, albeit with a belated "allegedly" after treating the "scandal" as a fact:

"The FBI has so far found no evidence that would warrant the Justice Department filing criminal charges in its investigation into the IRS targeting scandal, federal officials confirm to Fox News. The findings, which were first reported by The Wall Street Journal, could intensify the debate over the scandal, in which the IRS allegedly targeted Tea Party and other conservative groups applying for non-exempt tax status for special scrutiny." [emphasis added]

Headline: "New Dark-Money Rules Won't Stop Dark Money"

Under that headline, Mother Jones responded to the proposed new IRS rules on 501(c)(4) non-profits with four reasons why they wouldn't matter much. For one, the rules don't define what "primarily" means, so there's no guideline for how much political activity is too much. Also the proposed rules apply only to 501(c)(4) non-profits, not any of the other dark money pipes – for example, the rules don't apply to 501(c)(6) non-profits, which the Koch Brothers used to distribute $250 million in dark money in 2012. And in any case, the proposed rules are only "proposed" and may never be enacted.

Mother Jones also points out that the IRS, in the midst of recent budget cuts, job cuts, and political attacks, is afraid of seeming partisan and so prefers to do as little enforcement as possible.

Mother Jones does not mention that none of their analysis cuts to the basic problem in the law: that no 501(c)(4) non-profit organization is allowed by law to do ANY political activity. There is no mention of the obvious Gordian Knot solution to the problem: scrap the rules, just enforce the law. Nobody wants that. Not Republicans, because they're awash in dark money to such an extent they hardly know where to spend it. And not Democrats, who get enough dark money to keep hope alive that someday they'll get as much as Republicans.

Adding to this bipartisan morass of meaninglessness, the Republican majority of the House Ways and Means Committee, on a straight party-line vote on February 18, approved H.R.3865 and sent it to the full House for a vote that may or may not happen. Introducing the bill a month earlier, committee chair Dave Camp began by asserting a new bogus argument in this already largely fact-free debate:

"Over the past six months, this Committee has investigated the Internal Revenue Service's targeting of conservative groups. Though our investigation is not complete, and the IRS still has many more documents to provide to the Committee, we have discovered a concerted effort by the IRS to limit the ability of those targeted conservative groups to operate and engage in constitutionally protected public debate."

Republican: First Amendment demands subsidy for rich folks' speech

When Dave Camp says "constitutionally protected public debate," he's calling on the free speech rights of the Constitution's First Amendment, and he's doing it with the purest dishonesty. There is NO free speech issue involved with 501(c)(4) organizations. People in those organizations can say whatever they want (usual restrictions apply) and suffer no penalty.

The sole relevant point of tax-exempt status is that it provides a government subsidy for the approved activities. That subsidy takes the form of reduced taxes for donors to tax-exempt organizations, a donor class dominated by the rich. It other words, it's another form of welfare for the wealthy, justified by the argument that the money is going to support the general welfare as recommended in the Constitution's preamble.

For Dave Camp and his ideological clones, rich people deserve to have their political speech subsidized by the government in order to protect their First Amendment free speech rights, while keeping their identities secret – a perfectly egalitarian position, since anyone, no matter how poor, is free to make the same donations and get the same tax benefits and secrecy. That's a patently dishonest argument the powerful have long made and too few have challenged.

In the 2012 election cycle, outside groups who reported to the Federal Election Commission spent more than $1 billion to influence the vote. About a quarter of that was 501(c)(4) spending. This sector of non-profit political spending amounted to $1 million in 2006. The total was up to $92 million in 2010 and went over $250 million in 2012 – all subsidized by a federal government that allows donors to hide their identities.

The original law covering 501(c)(4) tax-exempt organizations [see above] is really clear: to be tax-exempt, you cannot do any politics. No one in authority anywhere seems to want to enforce this law as it stands. Democrats propose ineffective new regulations to replace the ineffective old regulations, even though none of these regulations are based in the law. Republicans argue for a new law which will block any enforcement of the currently unenforceable regulations in order to have their IRS witch hunt go on distracting the credulous.

In July 2011 – almost two years before the "scandal" was manufactured – three organizations (Public Citizen, Democracy 21, and the Campaign Legal Center) and a congressman (Democrat Chris van Hollen) filed a petition with the IRS requesting that the IRS revise its 501(c)(4) regulations to conform to the law. The IRS did not start work on new regulations and did not respond substantively in any other way. In the summer of 2013, these same plaintiffs filed a complaint in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, asking the court to order the IRS to follow the law. In the words of the complaint:

"Defendant Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has for many years violated the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) by allowing tax-exempt social welfare organizations to expend substantial sums on electoral activity. The IRC [code] provides that tax-exempt social welfare organizations must be 'exclusively' engaged in 'promotion of social welfare.' IRC sec. 501(c)(4). The IRS' implementing regulation recognizes that electoral activity does not fall within the scope of activity promoting social welfare. Treasury Regulation (TR) sec. 1.501(c)(4)-1(a)(2)(ii). But the IRS's regulation also purports to provide that an organization operates 'exclusively' to promote social welfare as long as it is operated 'primarily' for social welfare purposes. Id. Sec. 1.501(c)(4)-1(a)(2)(i). By redefining 'exclusively' as 'primarily' in violation of the clear terms of its governing statute, the IRS permits tax-exempt social welfare organizations to engage in substantial electoral activities in contravention of the law and court orders interpreting it." [emphasis added]

In September 2013, District Judge John D. Bates granted a motion to consolidate this case with another filed on the same issue. He also denied an IRS motion to dismiss the complaints. Since then, there has been no further development on the case.

Altogether these elements comprise the dominant paradigm for American governance in the early 21st century: Republicans keep on lying. Democrats keep on shucking and jiving. Bureaucrats run for cover (except the partisan ones). The Court delays. Most of the media follow the food fight rather than the statute or the facts. And pretty much everyone everywhere ducks the essential, underlying question: Is there ANY rational argument to be made for taxpayers subsidizing any random political activity by anyone anywhere?

William M. Boardman has over 40 years experience in theatre, radio, TV, print journalism, and non-fiction, including 20 years in the Vermont judiciary. He has received honors from Writers Guild of America, Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Vermont Life magazine, and an Emmy Award nomination from the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences.

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News. your social media marketing partner


We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.

General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.

Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.

- The RSN Team

+36 # WestWinds 2014-02-26 12:45
The sad part about all of this is that it is Disaster-by-Des ign, for in this confusion those that are profiting get to lie, cheat and steal... how very American (these days.)

As for the courts; they are making a laughing stock out of themselves with all of the crazy pro-corporate / anti-people decisions that are being handed down. They have made such a joke out of stare decisis and two hundred some odd years of jurisprudence that the law just doesn't even make sense any more. We'd be better off just getting rid of the whole mess and stop paying for them to have the opportunity to fully engage in the Grand Farce.
+26 # Vardoz 2014-02-26 14:00
This is the result of deeply corrupt judges in the Supreme Court combined with corrupt reps- Its a broken system - remember these are the guys who helped Bush win. Thomas used to work for Monsanto. They have done tremendous damage to our political system aiding and abetting abusive forces that are hell bent on trashing every crumb of our Democracy.
-40 # Robt Eagle 2014-02-26 15:10
Haven't commented in a long while as RSN BS is so rediculous, but it is refreshing to see how few people believe Boardman's insight as evidenced by the virtually non-existent comments here. Seems the Baordman NO IRS scandal really is a scandal because the Obama Administration lies and cheats at every possible opportunity as they practice Chicago politics on a national scale. Obama has also done so much harm to global unrest and intends to do more harm by minimizing the US dominance in the world militarily. No worries, the most vulnerable of our population are the poor and minorities, so they will eventually come around and see the light and vote Republican...un less Obama declares himself Emperor and does not allow elections in the future. Remains to be seen!
+22 # Marlene 2014-02-26 16:10
Robt Eagle, your poor spelling and/or typing reveals poor logic and incorrect assumptions. It's actually the Republicans who are attempting to prevent voters from voting with their gerrymandering and voter ID laws.
-35 # Robt Eagle 2014-02-26 16:23
Marlene, obviously you are mistaken...the vote will be as it will be once the poor and minorities realize that the Obama Administration is treating them badly. Imagine the awkening of the poor and minorities once they realize that they have been given nothing other than words (rhetoric). As to my spelling, so be it...seems you understood what my meaning was.
+2 # Texas Aggie 2014-02-27 08:45
Does this fit?
+14 # wrknight 2014-02-26 20:06
Bob, you remind me of a poem my mother once taught me. It goes

It may be so, but I don't know
It sounds so doggone queer.
I hate like heck to doubt your word,
But your BS won't go here.

Do us a favor and wait longer before commenting again.
+7 # Jim Young 2014-02-26 20:39
Quoting Robt Eagle:
...unless Obama declares himself Emperor and does not allow elections in the future. Remains to be seen!

How outrageous, given the real would be emperor:

"You don't get everything you want. A dictatorship would be a lot easier." Describing what it's like to be governor of Texas.
(Governing Magazine 7/98)

-- From Paul Begala's "Is Our Children Learning?"

"I told all four that there are going to be some times where we don't agree with each other, but that's OK. If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator," Bush joked.

--, December 18, 2000

"A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there's no question about it, " [Bush] said.

-- Business Week, July 30, 2001
+12 # Barbell 2014-02-26 21:05
It must be pretty lonely being an "Eagle" on this board. So far, down by 21 TDs, Mr Eagle. Does that tell you something? Like maybe your position is not shared by very many who are still above ground. Those of your ilk seem to spend all their time pandering to their base. Guess what? Your base is dying fast. Pretty soon there will be no more old white guys to vote for Republicans. I suppose that must be why you are dreaming, and I mean DREAMING when you speculate that the poor and minorities will one day see the light and vote Republican. Ain't going to happen in your or my lifetime. Your spelling, your racist attitude and your general obnoxious demeanor are why the Republican party is dead and just doesn't know it yet.
+8 # X Dane 2014-02-26 21:51
Robt Eagle.
Boy do you ever have your information DEAD WRONG. The ones making it incredibly difficult to vote is the republican governors.

They are reducing the amount of voting machines in poor and middle-class neighbourhoods, cutting out early voting, (So needed by people working 2-3 jobs) And eliminating Sunday voting.

Clearly only wealthy voters are wanted.

The IRS did NOT exclude any T party groups, but they DID disallow some democratic groups. Get better informed before you comment again.

You must be part of the corporate bunch, since you do not care about how they are
destroying our rights.
+1 # rose528 2014-03-02 20:28
as usual those nazi fascist party of NO (repugs) know nothing followers KNOW NOTHING, but since they get all the free stuff and benefits they have time to post on all the liberal and truth sites spreading lies, fear, hate and racism
+2 # whatdidimiss 2014-02-26 16:49
Mr. Boardman's fact and context-laden article is a welcome change from the allegation- and innuendo-heavy protestations of the political right. However, the law he cites 501(c)(4)) is not as unambiguous as the regulation (1.501(c)(4)-1( a)(2)(ii)) he relies on: no electoral activity. With a little creativity, though, anyone can create a civic league or a non-profit that promotes (at least arguably) both the social welfare and an electoral agenda at the same time. Both parties have embraced Get Out The Vote organizations whenever they feel confident the non-voters who are reached will support them.
As for his ultimate question of whether there is any rationality to subsidizing "random political activity," I quote from Chairman Mao: "Letting a hundred flowers blossom and a hundred schools of thought contend is the policy for promoting progress in the arts and the sciences and a flourishing socialist culture in our land." ( Civic participation is supposed to be a good. Unless it disagrees with you. Whether it needs to be subsidized with a tax deduction, with anonymity, or with both usually depends on whose ox is being gored.
+7 # WBoardman 2014-02-26 17:51
whatdidimiss seems to have missed
the distinction I was making between the law/statute
[cited in full]
which really is unambiguous on its face
[I take no responsibility for lawyerly distortions] --

the rules/regs aren't so much ambiguous as
downright self-contradict ory --
"primarily" cannot be "exclusively"
(even though "exclusively" is by definition also "primarily")

Letting flowers bloom and
paying them get their petals on are,
I submit, fundamentally different conditions --
unless whatdidimiss is arguing that
political activity can't exist without government subsidy.

Who knows, maybe that's true... or should be. ;-))))
+4 # Jim Young 2014-02-26 23:08
Quoting WBoardman:
...unless... ...arguing that political activity can't exist without government subsidy...

Who knows, maybe that's true... or should be. ;-))))

I'm thinking there is room, maybe even some need for government subsidy, with demise of the Fairness Doctrine and decrease in trusted forums like the League of Women Voters.

I'm thinking of Deliberative Democracy programs and things like the "What Next California" Deliberative Poll a scientifically selected random sample of 412 registered voters from throughout the state, seemed to do. See

A regularly scheduled meeting of such citizens councils, selected much as jurors are, would hopefully come up with as different an agenda as the 2011 one did from what the heavily lobbied legislature (or Petition Process) did. I would hope there would be such a group of new people meeting at least every two years (between house elections, and the older groups reconvening either 2, 4, or 6 years later to evaluate what was actually accomplished by the legislature. They might rank legislative accomplishments as better, worse, closely matching citizens concerns, or entirely disconnected, and report that to the public.

I'd add I wouldn't mind seeing no tax on political contributions up the the average donated per capita, then a progressive series of tax increments up to 50% to fund the Deliberative Democracy programs.
0 # tpmco 2014-02-27 01:47
Maybe don't say "random" next time. In the context of the article, random is way worse than primarily. Just sayin'.
0 # WBoardman 2014-03-01 10:17
Yes, "random" was intended to be pejorative.

"Random" is also what the present situation allows,
at least for those with money to burn.

If you accept the premise that American politics
have become a closed system,
and you ask who benefits from the 501(c)(4) joke,
one clear answer is: both major parties, who
have zero interest in a more open, honest,
competitive politics.
+7 # Marlene 2014-02-26 16:56
Obviously, it is you who are mistaken Robt. The right wing has been voting for Republicans for years to overturn Roe vs. Wade, to pass defense of marriage laws, to vilify gays, to prevent immigration, to privatise social security, to gut medicare and they have been given nothing other than words from Republicans. They have used these issues to stir up the base,and to gain votes while never addressing the issues. I cannot imagine any person of little wealth or any member of a minority voting for a Republican, except of course the minority of rich white men.
+8 # Granny Weatherwax 2014-02-26 19:08
The more I read William Boardman, the more I like his articulate style and substence.
Be it about foreign affairs such as with his articles on Turkey or US society such as with this one, Mr Boardman goes to the bottom of the problem.

I thought it was time you hear that some really appreciate your work, William
+5 # tpmco 2014-02-27 01:22
I like the way this article ended. This rich man's loophole needs to end. "Chairitible" contributions need to be limited to 5% of median adjusted gross income, or somewhere around $2,000.

I don't know about you all, but I'm tired of subsidizing rich people.
+2 # Edwina 2014-02-27 12:33
Thanks to RSN and Boardman for the thorough coverage of the issue. C-SPAN is the only television source I know of that might cover it. Our local PBS station no longer airs "Moyers & Company", the only other program I know that would take on this kind of issue.

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.