The IRS Scandal, and Hoover's Brutalist Legacy
The scandal currently unfolding at the Internal Revenue Service is actually being downplayed by some who feel that tax investigations into groups advocating an anti-tax attitude is more than justified on the face of it. Admittedly, all the facts are not yet in, but the scandal started when the IRS itself actually publicly admitted wrongdoing. So while there's a question of who knew about it (and who should be fired), the fact that scandalous behavior was happening isn't really even in question. Because it was, indeed, scandalous behavior. Any time a federal agency decides to intimidate those in the political arena in any way, large or small, it should be seen as a scandal by everyone -- no matter your political leanings. Because we've seen what happens when this sort of thing is allowed and encouraged, and it isn't a pretty sight.
The power to use the legal and police services of the federal government as leverage against your political opponents is a tempting one indeed, which is why both parties have done so in the past when they thought they could get away with such blatant violations of the Constitution. We've even lived through a very long period when this power got so out of control that one man held blackmailable material on United States presidents, Supreme Court justices, and too many members of Congress to count. This information was gathered systematically, by illegally wiretapping phone lines and bugging hotel rooms, as well as plenty of other underhanded (and, again, unconstitutional) methods. The man behind this effort was none other than J. Edgar Hoover.
Hoover was the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation for an astounding 48 years. Just think about the power that implies, for a second. Hoover led the agency before it was even named the FBI (it was called the Bureau of Investigations when Hoover took the helm in 1924). During his near-five-decade reign as America's "top cop," Hoover wielded an enormous amount of power -- so enormous that while two presidents actually considered replacing him (Truman and Kennedy), neither did so because they feared the consequences of doing so. Making Hoover, in essence, more powerful than the president.
Hoover held this power through knowing dirty secrets. He vacuumed up (ironically, given his last name) dirty secrets on everyone he could, and held onto the information in his files until he had a use for it.
Hoover was first given a truly free hand by a Democratic president, Franklin Delano Roosevelt. FDR benefited from Hoover's services, as when he was provided with damaging information about those running against him for the presidency. But Hoover also had an abiding dislike of Eleanor Roosevelt, whom he also kept an extensive file on. After his death, when Congress did belatedly investigate Hoover, it was found that every president from FDR through Richard Nixon had benefited from the FBI bugging their political opponents. That's "every" -- as in "both Democratic and Republican administrations."
It wasn't just the White House, all of Washington lived in fear of Hoover. Hoover's budget requests to Congress were unquestioningly filled, every single year -- in fact, from 1924 through 1971, Congress did not hold a single public hearing on the FBI's budget. Hoover's wiretapping included 12 Supreme Court justices as well, and influenced the selection process of others who might have wound up justices. Hoover kept files on important journalists and publishers, as well, which he would use to halt bad press before it happened. Hoover fed information to Joe McCarthy, whose crusade was not only against communists, but also homosexuals.
This was just within the federal government. In the political realm outside of elected officials, Hoover was just as industrious collecting dirt on anyone in the public eye, including an obsession with Hollywood. But Hoover's real legacy was the program known as COINTELPRO, which was a multi-decade effort to infiltrate, subvert, and destroy any group or leader deemed "subversive." This included people from Martin Luther King Jr. to John Lennon. It also included just about anyone who was anti-war, for any reason.
In short, while Hoover used his power over the government itself he also used his power against people critical of the government. This is, not to put too fine a point on it, un-American. It was a disgusting abuse of federal power, on a scale never seen in the country before and (hopefully) never to be seen again. Hoover's power was never even effectively challenged, because as everyone knew, he "had a file on everybody."
It's easy, in hindsight, to condemn J. Edgar Hoover. I can write this article without the fear that an FBI agent is going to show up at my door tomorrow and start asking pointed questions and issuing veiled threats, or that my phone will be bugged tomorrow. That would not have been true when Hoover was alive and in charge, however.
But taking a stand against such behavior should be automatic, and non-partisan. I am not remotely suggesting that whatever was going on at the Internal Revenue Service was even in the same league as Hoover's FBI, but it should be seen as the first step in a similar direction. Equating the two, however, would at this point be like comparing a petty shoplifter to Bernie Madoff. They're miles apart, in scope and severity, and no matter how high up the scandal reaches it will likely never even be in the same league as Hoover. The only way that could ever happen is if the IRS spent the next half-century abusing power politically, which is (quite obviously, now) not going to happen.
If the federal government decides that the definition of "non-profit" is being abused, then they should have launched an investigation into all non-profits who have entered the political realm. This would include the Tea Party groups, most likely, but it would also include a much wider array of organizations -- including even perhaps churches on both sides of the political divide which have been pushing the limits of what they're allowed to do politically for years, now. To put it another way, "Justice" is supposed to be blind in these situations. The IRS is not the FBI -- but it is indeed an arm of the federal government with a lot of leverage and interaction with everyone in America. It needs to be absolutely and unequivocally above partisan politics. That's the only way Americans will have any shred of trust in the organization.
So, yes, this is a scandal. How far it reaches and who needs to be fired are subjects which have not fully been plumbed yet. There are going to be future revelations, and heads should indeed roll. Just on general principle. If you condemn the federal government for investigating anti-war groups, for instance, then you must be morally and intellectually consistent and condemn them equally for targeting right-wing groups as well.
Because no matter which side it starts on, this sort of thing -- if left unchecked -- will eventually begin to consume everyone on both sides of the political aisle. Remember -- FDR unleashed Hoover, not a Republican.
I started with the thought that this sort of thing is "not a pretty sight." I close on an upbeat note in the same vein. A few months back, the federal government announced it was seriously considering moving the FBI headquarters out to the suburbs, and selling the land the current headquarters -- the "J. Edgar Hoover Building" -- is on to private interests. One assumes that this means the building itself will be torn down (or at the very least, renamed). Harry Reid, in 2001, tried to get Hoover's name removed from the building, saying his name was "a stain on the building." He failed to convince the Senate to do so, though, shameful as the name still is.
The building itself is rather ugly, designed with an exposed concrete exterior. The name of the style of architecture (you just can't make this stuff up) is "Brutalism." The day the FBI pulls this building down and christens a new headquarters somewhere in the Maryland or Virginia suburbs -- named after some other FBI luminary, one hopes -- will be a glad day indeed for all Americans. We've had one era of federal "Brutalism" with Hoover's name on it. We certainly don't need another. The way for it not to ever happen again is to stomp out such temptations whenever and wherever they are found, regardless of how small or unimportant they may seem at the time. Also, to stop naming buildings after the perpetrators of such abuse, of course.
[Program Note: The facts for this article come from many sources, which includes the book One Nation Under Sex by Larry Flynt and David Eisenbach, Ph.D., specifically chapter 5, "America's Sex Czar" (pp. 133-167). Scoff at the source if you'd like, but the book is fully footnoted and researched, and merely provides a handy synopsis of facts asserted by many other sources.]
-- Chris Weigant
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Chris,
Unless you buy Michale's argument that the Tea Party is just a bunch of people devoted to small government & those pictures of president Obama as Hitler, & those pictures of President Obama as the Joker, and... are just good, clean, fun;
Then
You have groups applying for tax-exempt status; with no intention of complying with the requirements for that status. That, to my mind, is fraud.
By your argument the IRS can not investigate them BECAUSE they are opposed to the President.
You've been Breibarted dude, the News Media has sold you that this is a Tea Party issue; not a tax exempt issue.
You have groups applying for tax-exempt status; with no intention of complying with the requirements for that status.
Hey db- I haven't seen any evidence to support this. If this is the case, it is also wrong. But I haven't seen any evidence to indicate this is the case.
By your argument the IRS can not investigate them BECAUSE they are opposed to the President.
I think Chris is arguing that the law should apply to everyone equally and any abuses of power should be treated as such.
You've been Breitbarted dude
What I do fear is going to happen is that conservatives are going to attempt to "Benghazify" this issue- to turn it into a big government conspiracy somehow orchestrated by Obama.
This would also be wrong as there is no evidence of an Obama conspiracy.
I think Chris hit the nail on the head when he said: "Admittedly, all the facts are not yet in."
I'd like to know more though as Chris also mentioned, the IRS has admitted that mistakes were made. Let's investigate then.
I was proud to hear our President come out and say:
"So we'll wait and see what exactly all the details and the facts are. But I've got no patience with it. I will not tolerate it. And we'll make sure that we find out exactly what happened on this."
I think this is the right thing to do. And why I'm proud to be a liberal.
-David
Yeh I am waiting to see exactly what is going on here as it doesn't make sense so far. Of course the IRS is well within their rights to target groups or people who are more likely to avoid taxes. They do this every day. If I set up a company called 'Evade Tax Because Government Sucks Ltd' and they scrutinize me more I can't play the political card and argue I am being targeted because of my political views about tax avoidance.
But it appears there is probably more than this here, otherwise I doubt the IRS would make a statement. My guess would be that they intended to scrutinize these groups like they would normal tax avoidance groups but someone in the IRS took it too far...
Also, to stop naming buildings after the perpetrators of such abuse, of course.
Actually, according to a tour guide in Washington when I was last there, J.E.H believed that the FBI building was one of the ugliest in Washington and hated it. It is believed that they named it after him more as an ironic jab rather than a reward. Of course this could just be tour-guide exaggeration ;)
David & michty,
I certainly agree with Benghazify. I assert Breibarted, because 95% of the MSM stuff I see speaks of the IRS trageting the Tea Party; when in actuality it is the interplay of the Tea Party groups seeking tax-exempt status. Tax exempts can't engage in certain political activities. & God love him, Michale recognized that in the last thread; & was reduced to trying to deny the Tea Party as a political group. It's not that they are the Tea Party. It's not that they oppose President Obama. It's that they are engaging in prohibited activities that draws the scrutiny. And I don't have to prove they have engaged in such activities. I only have to assert that an investigation is warranted.
You remember the Churches that came out & opposed President Obama a few months ago? They need to be investigated because that activity is not allowed tax exempt Churches. It's the political activity; not where that activity is directed.
I'm just very frustrated at how the MSM has (Bleep) up the story & given the RWMO a ready made "scandal" where the story should be the Tea Party using "Your tax dollars" for their fun & games.
And I'm frustrated at Chris for buying into the scandal story the RWMO & MSM are pushing.
I recognize there are many groups comprising the "Tea Party". It's a convenient shorthand & is in most of the stories I see.
Shameless Plug: If it weren't for CBS Radio News; I wouldn't have heard of the tax-exempt angle which makes the whole story understandable.
'Cause you've either got to admit that this is an outgrowth of a tax exemption issue; or you've got to imagine some sort of Nixonian plot against the Tea Party.
AND
When you come down to it the Tea Party is one of President Obama's best friends. They look so bad, he looks good by comparison.
With the "outing" of this latest "scandal" I can only conclude that it is much ado about nothing,or maybe not. I will however float my own theory and allow that it is tenous as all I know is what I read in the newspapers.It should be pointed out that the last commisioner of the IRS was a Bush appointee who resigned in 2012.Could it be that the Republican commisioner was part of a Right Wing conspiracy to make the President look bad? I will leave that hanging in the air and await further developments.One thing I remain sure of is that the Fourth Estate in this country is a pox ridden entity as of late.
CW,
The IRS didn't "intimidate" anyone. It makes perfect sense for the IRS to target groups promoting political activism who're claiming tax-exempt status based on non-political issue advocacy. The simple fact is these groups are breaking the law, and dodging taxes. The problem is proving it in court. Because the politicians, and courts, make it nearly impossible to investigate or prosecute them. The IRS is in trouble because of the political implications of their actions. In, effect, Republicans are accusing the IRS of being politically motivated because they engaged in an investigatory practice, which makes perfect sense given their mission and limited resources, but which has unacceptable political overtones. In other words, in a classic Catch-22, they're in trouble because they are supposed to be non-political, and weren't politically astute enough to see how politicians could paint their actions as political. To protect democracy the IRS shouldn't be used to intimidate or harass groups or individuals for political reasons. That does not mean they shouldn't intimidate or harass political groups, even if they're engaged in breaking the law.
If these groups weren't political then how is targeting them "politically motivated?" IF they are political then their tax-exempt status applications were likely fraudulent and deserved closer scrutiny. There's no scandal here. Unless you count deliberate attempts to systematically break the law, and politicians aiding the attempt by defunding IRS investigators, slandering enforcement efforts, and making the absurd argument that simply because an organization exists to advocate political positions is no reason to suspect their issue advocacy may be political, any more than any one else's.
The IRS said the policy was inappropriate. I agree. But inappropriate was all that it was.
Michael,
The IRS did not stop targeting everyone else and "only target Tea Party groups." This particular policy only targeted Tea Party groups because Tea Party groups are political groups, and readily identifiable. The IRS has hundreds of similar guidelines targeting hundreds of other groups.
Where's the outrage over Republican legislatures passing laws, which are ALSO supposed to be "non-partisan," that "only target" Planned Parenthood?
My guess would be that they intended to scrutinize these groups like they would normal tax avoidance groups but someone in the IRS took it too far...
Fascinating ... Now Michale would be all about profiling :)
Ok, ok. I shouldn't pick on him when he's not here.
-David
OK, folks -
I think part of the problem here is that the commentary is getting out ahead of the facts of the story. Not all facts are in, so let's not over-analyze them quite yet.
Here are the facts as I understand them:
Citizens United decision opens up the floodgates for PACs. A whole bunch of them, after the 2010 election, file for non-profit status.
The IRS singles out some of them for extra review based upon their names -- by searching for "tea party" or "patriot" or "Constitution." They didn't single them out because of the data on their application, but because of the name they had chosen. This is not "impartial," this is indeed "targeting." Which is the heart of the problem.
These were not the only groups the IRS reviewed, but may be the only groups chosen for review in this fashion (or maybe "using these criteria").
At some point, the manager of the group doing these reviews was aware of what they were doing. She used to be an aide to Dick Cheney, I believe, so she's not some rabid partisan liberal or anything.
At some point, the administrator in Washington was aware of what was going on. He was a Bush appointee, and therefore not some rabid partisan liberal or anything.
Probably before those last two items on the timeline, the tea party groups complain about the treatment they are getting to their elected officials in Congress. Congress asks for answers, and the administrator denied any targeting was going on (whether before or after he knew about it, I'm not sure, but we'll all know the answer to that pretty soon, you can bet on that).
Because of the political pressure, an investigation is launched from the IRS' "boss" -- the Treasury Department.
The investigation finds some wrongdoing, and is about to be publicly released.
An IRS official, apparently answering questions at a public forum (after a speech, I think?) actually admits wrongdoing. He admits IRS agents were targeting groups based on their names. He made this admission (I am assuming) due to the imminence of the Treasury report's release.
That's pretty much where we're at now. The Treasury report is due out within days. It will likely paint a much more detailed picture of what went on.
But, even at this early point, what is kind of astounding is that the IRS spokesman already admitted doing something wrong. This is what "broke" the scandal story. Government spokespeople don't normally do this sort of thing, no matter how badly their department has screwed up. So you've got to believe that the evidence is pretty hard to dispute (which we'll all see when the report is released).
If these were defensible acts -- any sort of "well, that's just what we do, investigate non-profit claims" -- then that defense would have been mounted by now. It has not been. The scandal broke when the spokesman admitted wrongdoing -- not when he "tried to fight back against an unfounded accusation." In other words, not even the IRS is trying to "explain" the scandal away.
Obama's right to denounce this early. He should be firing people by the middle of next week, too. That's the only way to handle this sort of thing, really.
OK, now I've had my say, feel free to rip into it, as usual.
:-)
-CW
CW,
Apologies if I've "ripped".
When a group, as a whole, proclaims antithesis towards a certain institution and that institution's process-then goes to that institution for favorable advantages, merits for me, that institution looking deeper into that group's various doing(s). It could be from all the talk radio I listen to that this ruffles my feathers something bad, the blustered hyperbole emanating grinds me to no end. Was there any one of them that were denied the special status? Or were they simply made to face their own rhetoric in a real world scenario? Such would frighten most.Mr. Weigant (post 9) The only thing to 'rip' you about in that post is that it was a she not a he "“Lois, a few months ago there were some concerns about the IRS’s review of 501(c)(4) organizations, of applications from tea party organizations,” Celia Roady, a veteran tax lawyer, asked Lois Lerner, head of the IRS’ tax-exempt organizations division, a few minutes after Lerner finished giving prepared remarks. “I was just wondering if you could provide an update.”"http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/05/lois_lerner_irs_scandal.php
db -
Don't worry about it -- that "rip into it" was meant in a purely lighthearted fashion. Maybe it's the absence of Michale (where is he, anyway?), or maybe I just fully expected to get some flack by bringing J. Edgar into today's news in such a fashion (which I admit was going out on a limb), but I expect people to rip my logic up on a regular basis. How else will it ever improve? So, no apology is necessary -- perish the thought!
:-)
statusquoteme -
You're right... mea culpa. The "she" was also the same "she" who was manager of the group, I think.
-CW
OK, now I've had my say, feel free to rip into it, as usual.
Heheh. It's just spirited debate.
And a good one at that!
A couple interesting things to add:
- Apparently this story was first broken by Propublica, a Pulitzer prize winning progressive news organization
- Plenty of evidence exists that this is going to be hyped beyond exaggeration by the conservative press and used as evidence in support of their big government conspiracy theories.
From the comparisons to Watergate to the linking of this to Obama to what I'm guessing will be the inevitable calls for impeachment.
What I think frustrates us as liberals is that if liberal groups were targeted, as in how liberal groups are being targeted across America w/ burdensome voting regulations designed to reduce liberal turnout, there would be nary a peep in the corporate media.
What's frustrating is the skewed media perspective.
-David
Btw DB-
Here's a good article that talks about the tax abuse ...
http://www.mintpressnews.com/inappropriate-criteria-inadequate-management-to-blame-for-irs-fiasco/
-David