Author Archives: Rick Hasen

In Defense of Lois Lerner

Lois Lerner’s “Worst Week”

CPI reports.

The Fix reports.

Gary Bass and Beth Kingsley have written this oped in the Washington Post:

The IRS’s improper scrutiny of conservative groups’ applications for tax-exempt status certainly warrants investigation. But we must not lose sight of the underlying problems that led to this situation: the lack of workable standards to determine what activity the Internal Revenue Service considers “political” and how much of it a nonprofit group can do….

Much of this problem could be addressed by adopting objective, substantive criteria to define political intervention for nonprofit organizations. For the past four years, we have worked with legal experts and nonprofit leaders at the Bright Lines Project (now housed at Public Citizen) to develop just such a proposal.

Bloomberg reports.

NLJ reports.

WaPo: “Ken Corbin, who was deputy director of a larger unit of the IRS, will be taking Lerner’s place, according to internal communications.”

NYT: “Lawmakers from both parties said Thursday that senior I.R.S. officials had requested Ms. Lerner’s resignation but that she refused, forcing them to put her on leave instead. Whether her suspension will lead to dismissal was unclear, given Civil Service rules that govern federal employment.”

Here.

WaPo reports.

TNR.

Ellen Aprill:

IRS employees who review applications for exemption have a duty to ask follow-up questions of applicants, including groups affiliated with the tea party. In the current controversy, IRS reviewers wrongly singled out conservative groups for unusually exacting follow-up. In a number of these cases, they also asked inappropriate questions, such as the identity of donors.

Some media reports, however, imply that the IRS cannot and should not ask any questions of applicants for exemption, that any inquiry invades privacy and violates the First Amendment. That implication is wrong. An organization that seeks an IRS acknowledgment of its exempt status subjects itself to scrutiny — scrutiny designed to ensure that the group in fact qualifies for the benefit of tax exemption.

Politico reports.

Norm Ornstein opinion piece for National Journal, with the subhead: “The IRS scandal evolved from the broader reality that the GOP has changed its financing mantra from ‘disclosure’ to ‘secrecy.’”

Bloomberg reports.

WaPo:

Today we publish a commentary by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), arguing against legislation to require expanded campaign finance disclosure. The senator points to the current furor over how the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) mishandled applications from tea party and other conservative groups for tax-exempt status under Section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code. We certainly agree with him that the IRS failed to meet basic standards of fairness in selectively pressing the groups for more information and in delaying their applications.

Mr. McConnell writes that the IRS scandal shows that political donors must be protected from possible “intimidation” by the government, that Washington is out to “target people because of their beliefs.” This is an awfully dark view of national government under any administration. Such practices are common in other countries but not in the United States. The IRS failure was an exception, and a bad one, but not the rule.

BuzzFeed reports.

The Fix reports.

WaPo reports.

CRP:

IRS employees who sent overly detailed questionaires to some groups applying for tax-exempt status in recent years used words like “tea party” and “patriot” to try to filter out those that planned to be heavily involved in politics (a big no-no).

As it turns out, not only was that improper; it’s not even very effective. For instance, two liberal groups that have faded in and out of the political scene mysteriously and repeatedly over several years bear names that few would associate, at first glance, with progressive causes: Citizens for Strength and Security, and Patriot Majority.

NYT reports.