IRS Political Timeline

• 

An IRS Political Timeline

President Obama spent months in 2010 warning Americans about the 'threat' to democracy posed by conservative groups, right at the time the IRS began targeting these groups.

• By KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL

Perhaps the only useful part of the inspector general's audit of the IRS was its timeline. We know that it was August 2010 when the IRS issued its first "Be On the Lookout" list, flagging applications containing key conservative words and issues. The criteria would expand in the months to come.

What else was happening in the summer and fall of 2010? The Obama administration and its allies continue to suggest the IRS was working in some political vacuum. What they'd rather everyone forget is that the IRS's first BOLO list coincided with their own attack against "shadowy" or "front" conservative groups that they claimed were rigging the electoral system.

Below is a more relevant timeline, a political one, which seeks to remind readers of the context in which the IRS targeting happened.

Agence France-Presse/Getty Images

Barack Obama warns the country about conservative groups, Aug. 9, 2010

Aug. 9, 2010: In Texas, President Obama for the first time publicly names a group he is obsessed with—Americans for Prosperity (founded by the Koch Brothers)—and warns about conservative groups. Taking up a cry that had until then largely been confined to left-wing media and activists, he says: "Right now all around this country there are groups with harmless-sounding names like Americans for Prosperity, who are running millions of dollars of ads . . . And they don't have to say who exactly the Americans for Prosperity are. You don't know if it's a foreign-controlled corporation."

Aug. 11: The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee sends out a fundraising email warning about "Karl Rove-inspired shadow groups."

Aug. 21: Mr. Obama devotes his weekly radio address to the threat of "attack ads run by shadowy groups with harmless-sounding names. We don't know who's behind these ads and we don't know who's paying for them. . . . You don't know if it's a foreign-controlled corporation. . . . The only people who don't want to disclose the truth are people with something to hide."

Week of Aug. 23: The New Yorker's Jane Mayer authors a hit piece on the Koch brothers, entitled "Covert Operations," in which she accuses them of funding "political front groups." The piece repeats the White House theme, with Ms. Mayer claiming the Kochs have created "slippery organizations with generic-sounding names" that have "made it difficult to ascertain the extent of their influence in Washington."

Aug. 27: White House economist Austan Goolsbee, in a background briefing with reporters, accuses Koch industries of being a pass-through entity that does "not pay corporate income tax." The Treasury inspector general investigates how it is that Mr. Goolsbee might have confidential tax information. The report has never been released.

This same week, the Democratic Party files a complaint with the IRS claiming the Americans for Prosperity Foundation is violating its tax-exempt status.

Sept. 2: The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee warns on its website that the Kochs have "funneled their money into right-wing shadow groups."

Sept. 16: Mr. Obama, in Connecticut, repeats that a "foreign-controlled entity" might be funding "millions of dollars of attack ads." Four days later, in Philadelphia, he again says the problem is that "nobody knows" who is behind conservative groups.

Sept. 21: Sam Stein, in his Huffington Post article "Obama, Dems Try to Make Shadowy Conservative Groups a Problem for Conservatives," writes that a "senior administration official" had "urged a small gathering of reporters to start writing on what he deemed 'the most insidious power grab that we have seen in a very long time.' "

Sept. 22: In New York City, Mr. Obama warns that conservative groups "pose as non-for-profit, social welfare and trade groups," even though they are "guided by seasoned Republican political operatives" who might be funded by a "foreign-controlled corporation."

Sept. 26: On ABC's "This Week," Obama senior adviser David Axelrod declares outright that the "benign-sounding Americans for Prosperity, the American Crossroads Fund" are "front groups for foreign-controlled companies."

Sept. 28: The president, in Wisconsin, again warns about conservative organizations "posing as nonprofit groups." Sen. Max Baucus, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, writes to the IRS demanding it investigate nonprofits. The letter names conservative organizations.

On Oct. 14, Mr. Obama calls these groups "a problem for democracy." On Oct. 22, he slams those who "hide behind these front groups." On Oct. 25, he upgrades them to a "threat to our democracy." On Oct. 26, he decries groups engaged in "unsupervised spending."

These were not off-the-cuff remarks. They were repeated by the White House and echoed by its allies in campaign events, emails, social media and TV ads. The president of the United States spent months warning the country that "shadowy," conservative "front" groups—"posing" as tax-exempt entities and illegally controlled by "foreign" players—were engaged in "unsupervised" spending that posed a "threat" to democracy. Yet we are to believe that a few rogue IRS employees just happened during that time to begin systematically targeting conservative groups? A mere coincidence that among the things the IRS demanded of these groups were "copies of any contracts with and training materials provided by Americans for Prosperity"?

This newspaper reported Thursday that Cincinnati IRS employees are now telling investigators that they took their orders from Washington. For anyone with a memory of 2010 politics, that was obvious from the start.

Write to kim@wsj.com.

A version of this article appeared June 7, 2013, on page A13 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: An IRS Political Timeline.

Copyright 2012 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Why I Am Giving a Blank

I recently moved. I changed from living in one town in Massachusetts to residing in another town in Massachusetts. I went in to the Town Hall where I used to live and un-registered from the voter rolls. The first official did not know which form to use or how to remove me from the voter roll. I was also a town official, and that meant I had to resign my post.

I then went to my "new" Town Hall to register to vote. I was handed the form, filled it in and was prepared to prove who I was. I had my various state issued photo ID's, my US Passport, a copy of my Birth Certificate (long form), a copy of the lease for my new address, and a piece of mail that had been forwarded by the Post Office. I tried to look nervous. I was dressed casually so that no one who give me any undue respect. I did not check the box that stated I was a citizen, and I left the box blank that swore I would be 18 or older by June 25th. I checked Republican for affiliation. If the IRS was responsible for voter registration, that should have demanded extra scrutiny.

The clerk reviewed the form. She told me to check the two empty boxes and gave me a copy of the form. That's it. No ID needed. No documentation required. I kept all my papers in my pocket. I am now a registered voter and I will see if anyone asks me for my ID when I go to vote for the first time in three weeks.

But I am not actually going to vote in the upcoming election. The choice is between Ed Markey, and anti-America corrupt politicrat, and Gabriel Gomez, a man who has shown himself to lack the character or the skills needed in a legislator. While neither deserves my vote, it should be easy to hope that Gomez would be the better choice. Pragmatically, he says more things I agree with than Ed Markey ever would. But given I sense that neither means what they say, so what Gomez says is not enough.

So in this election, I will fight the inconveniences of what it takes to vote, and exercise my only valid option: I will cast a blank ballot.

My vote will not change this election in terms of deciding who will win or who will lose. Ed Markey is likely to win with ~55% of the votes cast. If anything were to cause another Massachusetts Miracle (ask Martha Coakley if she believes in miracles), my vote would not be the deciding ballot. One has to be realistic.

Now It would be possible for me to vote anyway I want and not tell people what I did. Or I could lie, and tell them what ever I want. Or whatever they want to hear. But I won't do that.

I will show up to vote because as a citizen I am supposed to. I will not vote for Ed Markey because of his corruption and desire for the destruction of the Republic. I will not vote for Gabriel Gomez because he may be worse. He may not oppose the basic values of our Republic like Ed Markey does, but he does not understand those values well enough to honor the oath of office. Or maybe he does understand America and has no more respect for this exceptional country anymore than Markey does. Either way, I can't vote for anyone like him for an office like this.

I guess I am most fearful that Gomez might stumble into a victory the way Scott Brown did. That might encourage many more people who do not care about America, about Freedom, about Liberty to run for office and think they can win. That might encourage more people to think that what is best for America is to forsake her values and turn to the Gomez' to bring about victory.

It is not.

America can only win when we remain committed to the Rule of Law as defined by the Constitution. We cannot win by electing Ed Markey or Gabriel Gomez. They can win "election", but America will lose. I will not vote for America to lose.

America is being tested. I am being tested.

I am ready for my test. I give a blank.