Quote:blackaeronaut wrote:They claim they were “scrutinized” by the IRS in much the same way that Conservative and Tea Party groups were scrutinized, and that they “appreciate” the scrutiny.
Dig a little deeper and you'll find that they weren't the only ones scrutinized by IRS. Liberal groups, in particularly one here in Texas known as Progress Texas was scrutinized as well. After all, the Democrats can't get away with the same thing. That'd just be unfair. What does Progress Texas have to say on the matter? TO: Tea/Republican Party: SUCK IT UP, BITCHES. Well, not quite so colorfully, but the sentiment was there.
Quote:As with the Tea Party groups, the IRS sought copies of promotional materials, backgrounds of officers, meeting minutes and specifics about activities, such as get-out-the-vote drives, that the organization said it would conduct.Matt Glazer of Progress Texas would have you believe that those were the same questions and inquiries made of Conservative Groups.
Not true. The questions asked the conservative groups were unconstitutionally intrusive. Here’s one example:
Do you directly or indirectly communicate with members of legislative bodies? If so, provide copies of the written communications and contents of other forms of communications.
What is an “indirect” communication? A newspaper article that a legislator might read? A speech a legislator’s spouse might attend? The question is impossibly broad and vague. Here’s another example:
List each past or present board member, officer, key employee and members of their families who:a) Has served on the board of another organization.b) Was, is or plans to be a candidate for public office. Indicate the nature of each candidacy.c) Has previously conducted similar activities for another entity.d) Has previously submitted an application for tax exempt status.
So now the spouses, parents, and children of conservative leaders are under scrutiny?
Or, how about this:
Do you have a close relationship with any candidate for public office or political party? If so describe fully the nature of that relationship.
These questions read like a wish list for far-left activists trying to examine every aspect of the conservative grassroots movement and chill or intimidate activists into silence. Imagine if the IRS had similarly targeted the Occupy Wall Street movement or labor unions or environmentalist groups, the outcry -- from the beginning -- would have been overwhelming.
Progress Texas is trying the "equivalency dodge" but closer examination of ALL the facts puts the lie to what they are trying to claim.
Additionally, the Progress Texas’s routine audit request came from a California office. The targeted Conservative inquiries were all from D.C. and Cincinnati Ohio offices. They were not sending out the same letters of inquiry from California to Liberals as they were to Conservatives.
You’ll also notice this little bit of information glossed over by Glazer:
Quote:An Austin, Texas-based group, Progress Texas, received a letter from the IRS in February 2013 when it sought nonprofit status.While the average wait for Conservative and Tea Party groups to be granted (or denied) their tax exempt status is about 3 years, Progress Texas sought tax exempt non-profit status in February.
Of this year.
You’ll notice, if you go to their site, that tax exempt status has already been granted. In less than 3 months.
Probably a lot quicker than that.
But Matt Glazer and Phillip Martin would have you believe that they received the exact same scrutiny as Conservative groups.
Who are still waiting for their tax-exempt non-profit status.
If the IRS treated Progress Texas just the way they treat everybody else seeking non-profit status, why did the IRS admit wrong doing in specifically targeting Conservative and Tea Party groups?