four GHz which is why you want to invest in a jammer that
can tamper this signal. Waiting until the park is about to close is
one way to get some privacy, as is visiting the park during Disneyland’s less busy times.

As it turns out, several examples were given of outrageous IRS behavior with respect to various section 501(c) applications and not merely those involving section 501(c)(4). This is as I suspected: the entire issue is hopelessly political. The problem is the entire section and not merely (c)(4).

Per the IRS website, there are approximately 1.6 million EO’s outstanding and the IRS processes about 200,000 applications each year. The (c)(4)’s are a very small percentage of the total. Not only is this hopelessly political, but the entire section is out of control.

As I’ve stated here earlier, the only rational response is to eliminate *all* tax exempts. There will be no unnecessary delays, no political targeting, no partisan IRS hearings and no understaffed IRS EO department. Our budget will be improved and intrusion into our personal liberties diminished. Let folks spend their money on causes they see fit without taxpayer subsidies and IRS interference or harassment. What could be more simple?

Alas, the main argument against this will be because it is “politically unfeasible”. That’s perhaps true, but it is only because we’ve allowed these interests to spiral so out of control that they’ve captured government. It will only get worse, even though the vested interests will also argue that we simply need to improve our government regulations and oversight.

I just watched most of the Congressional hearing held today on this issue. You may be interested to know that a Congressman Young (in both appearance and name) presented the very same question to Steven Miller that you raised above—that is, how can the excuse for the “targeting” of certain groups be based on an upsurge in applications when there was no upsurge when the policy began—-One wonders whether they read the reason blog or these comments….

Miller had no answer for that and said that he would have to look at the numbers, even though those numbers were in the IG report that Miller had repeatedly indicated he agreed with.

As far as “targeting” is concerned, Miller was very anxious to avoid that term and at times this deliberate avoidance was painful to watch and hear. The reason, it later dawned on me, was that in one of the documents quoted the IRS had previously denied to Congress that there had been any “targeting” going on. The need to now avoid use of that term is obvious. It is to avoid any perjury or obstruction charges. It reminds me of “I didn’t have sex with that woman”.

I think you are mistaken as to the political nature of “think tanks” and how they affect the outcomes of political campaigns. One would be naive, and indeed very wrong, to think that the only way a campaign is helped or hindered is through ads paid for through “political donations”.

Far more effective than an advertisement are partisan commentary appearing in news organizations and especially “think tanks”. These are mostly folks waiting in the wings hoping for a(n (additional) share in the action once government control is obtained. Their political arguments masked as non-partisan and objective commentary are far more effective than direct political advertisement.

Even if you don’t share my jaded, but unfortunately legitimate view on this, I’ve yet to hear a persuasive argument that the taxpayers should subsidize this sort of activity. Presumably, the argument is that this sort of activity benefits the “social welfare” (different terms, but same concept). Somehow, the IRS is supposed to be able to define that for 501(c) organizations generally. Those are much more numerous and powerful than the 501(c)(4) organizations and yet only the latter are selected for outrage because, according to the rest of the 501 crowd, the IRS can’t do an adequate job of defining what they are supposed to do (or not) and they don’t have the resources to police them. The remaining subsections of 501 are much more troublesome in this respect.

AMT,

This is not a “problem”; it is an additional advantage. Why should taxpayers, many of whom don’t subscribe to any organized “religion”, subsidize contributions to “religious organizations”, the recognition of which is even more subjective than “political” ones. (This is also, by the way, a definitional responsibility thrust onto the IRS. Howard would be rightly upset).

The SCt was likely mistaken in allowing this in the first place. Subsidizing religious organizations through the tax system strikes me as much more a violation of the separation of church and state than putting a cross on public land.

On the other hand, most of the other exempt org categories haven’t been used (apparently) to circumvent reporting requirements of the Federal Election Campaign Act.

On “political activity,” Congress took a stab at a definition in 527(e)(2). I don’t work with it myself, but that definition seems to separate electioneering from policy advocacy and lobbying. IRS’s own regs for (c)(4) say “[t]he promotion of social welfare does not include direct or indirect participation or intervention in political campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office.”

Under these definitions, for example, I don’t think the various “think-tank” evaluations of tax proposals in the 2012 presidential campaign were obviously interventions in political campaigns: for example, there were no ad buys.

In the current scandal, the IRS was looking for impermissible electioneering among the (c)(4)s in a way that was inconsistent and unfair. The problem isn’t really that the IRS was looking for something elusive and hard to find, it was looking for something more-or-less easily identifiable, but in a party-discriminatory, or ideologically discriminatory, fashion.

The enforcement of an electioneering ban will never be perceived as fair by those to whom it applies. But such a ban might be implemented consistent with due process. It seems doubtful that there’s a road from “here” to “due process,” though, based on headcount (with or without sequester) and possibly institutional insufficiency.

A final related thought: Why do we want the IRS regulating health insurance cost on a per-taxpayer basis? It seems crazy on its face.

If one is a potential donor to a section 501(c)(4) organization, there are two things at stake if a donation is made and the exempt status is denied (prospectively or retroactively):

1. As noted, the donor’s identity will not be shielded from public view;

2. As *not* noted, the donation to that organization is (subject to annual limits on total gifts), subject to gift tax ( or a reduction of the lifetime exclusion).

If 1 is not a consideration, potentially subjecting a donation to gift tax certainly might be in many cases. The denial or indeed the mere delay in obtaining IRS certification of status has an undeniable chilling effect on potential donors. The political operatives know this and that is one of the concerns regarding what the motivation was for singling out groups on one side of the political divide (the side not in control of the Treasury Department).

Of course, the IRS is in the “untenable position” of regulating “political speech”, which is not clearly defined and probably can’t be clearly defined.

But, in this respect, section 501(c)(4) is not really any different than section 501(c) organizations generally. The key difference does not rest on whether the activity is “political”; but, with respect to section 501(c)(4) organizations, whether that activity is its *primary* activity.

Gleckman writes:

“But can the IRS ever define what is a permissible political activity and what is not? Should it even try?”

The answer is, no it can’t define it. But, given the hand given it by Congress (not the Supreme Court), it has to try.

Gleckman is walking a thin and very self-serving line here. Of course, the IRS must also determine if the TPC, the Urban Intitute and the Brookings institution are engaging in *any* “political activity”. Howard seems to see no problem with the IRS making *that* determination. But, when it comes to someone else’s organization, it suddenly becomes an impossible task.

Having watched this space for some time now, I’ve concluded that the TPC and, in particular, Howard Gleckman, are engaging in “political activity”. But, they’re certainly not alone. Many other exempt organizations are engaged in similar political activity. The IRS may disagree, but the fact is they are not even trying because it’s a hopeless endeavor. Nevertheless, the law says they’re supposed to draw that distinction.

Howard’s conclusion is that the IRS should reserve exempt status for organizations that “completely eschew politics” (presumably his own). Again, how will that be defined? This kind of reminds me of the self-serving carve out that so-called news organizations want to carve out for themselves with respect to the Citizens United decision.

I’ll do Gleckman one better: let’s end this charade for all organizations under section 501, including his employer. That will really solve a lot of the dilemmas currently faced by the IRS. That won’t solve any “political speech” issues; however, it will get the IRS out of the game completely.