I did read the linked articles. I am not an expert in this area of tax and election law, but I think the articles reach conclusions that are not obviously supported by the facts. The gist of all the articles is that these groups claim in their applications that they will not be involved in electioneering or will devote limited sums to it, yet end up spending substantial amounts. This seems to be how yu concluded they had "perjured" themselves, etc.
First, I would note there is no record of any of them being found guilty of anything remotely like that. I concede the wheels of justice grind slowly, but it seems to me when a supposedly responsible group is accusing them of misconduct, they should acknowledge that the IRS has not challenged them.
Second, the propublica articles skip over the details of the supposed electioneering expenditures for the most part. They gave a couple of examples, which struck me as having been carefull vetted by lawyers to edge right up to the line but not cross over it. For example, there was an ad about a project in texas being derailed by an endangered spider. The ad attacked environmentalists and referred to a democratic representative as someone they supported, then apparently said âThe best way to stop left-wing extremists from killing jobs is to vote against their hand-picked candidate Pete Gallego.â
Now this may sound like electioneering but my guess is they would argue it is not. Generally in election law, if you urge the election or defeat of a named candidate, that is electioneering. Here however, they would argue they are educating the public about creating jobs and the reference to the candidate was incidental, not the primary purpose of the ad. Is it BS? of course, but the tax law is filled with dark corners that are exploited by clever lawyers and accountants.
So, in my view, propublica's claims about improper spending my or may not stand up to scrutiny. Likely, the courts will get to decide some of them.
The issue of the release of the confidential documents is kind of a litmus test of one's faith in the IRS and this administration. Under normal circumstances, maybe I could believe them, even though it all seems very convenient and suspiciously coincidental. Under the cloud of scandal, which the IRS already apologized for, it seems clearly part of their plan. If it was inadvertent, why didn't they demand the documents back from propublica? If it was all a big mistake, why didn't propublica just return them?
Doesn't it strike you as a little suspicious that one of the groups involved was Karl Rove's Crossroads organization, which had raised a ton of money to support Romney?