Quote from AAAintheBeltway:
Well Captain, the problem is those on the left don't have a problem with what happened. It's not a matter of being satisfied with a clearly bogus expxlanation.
Look at piezoe. He seems pretty reasonable and intelligent, but it just doesn't bother him at all that the IRS in the year before a monumental election took active and deliberate steps to hamper conservative groups and suppress conservative voting. He's not at all concerned that the IRS released highly confidential information, including donor names, which opened them up to documented harrassment.
Now when Valery Plame's name came out, due to her publicity hound husband mainly, liberals were beside themselves with rage. It was ironic to see them purporting to support the agency they had long despised, the CIA, but if CIA employees were improperly trying to undermine Bush, by golly they would support them.
Liberals make a great show of being principled and having high ethics, but they never seem to see any fault on their side, whether it is Bill Clinton's serial scandals or this administration's hardball Chicag-style approach.
I guess I would fall in the middle ground somewhere.
The problem for me with respect to the IRS actions, and the reason I'd go slow on accusing them of "deliberately hampering conservative groups and suppressing conservative voting" Is the large imbalance of 501c(4) applications from conservative groups over others groups that also would appear to have political interests. Over the period in question there were 20 applications from non-conservative groups and 292 applications from conservative groups. The IRS did ask for more information on applications in both categories, but there were so many more applications from conservative groups that to me it makes sense that there would be many more conservative groups examined. Then too, some of those groups actually used the designation "Tea Party" in their applications. I mean really, how neglectful would anyone working in Cincinnati Office have to be to not raise an eyebrow if you had a 501c(4) application with "Tea Party" written on it?!!!
The other factor that it seems should be taken into account is that on close examination, and a follow-up to see where these applicants actually spent money, virtually 100% of these applications were non-qualifying for 501c(4) status by the written IRS criteria; yet according to the statements they made in their applications they are qualified. Shouldn't that raise red flags?
Shouldn't it be the responsibility of the IRS to ask questions when the get a 501c(4) application with "Tea Party" written on it?
The IRS has been given an impossible task. There is no way to prove that the organization is not qualified until they submit their tax return. Consequently I wish the IRS would automatically turn them all down as pending until they have an an accurate account of their tax year expenditures, which they should then submit with their tax filing. This would put them all on a level playing field with the groups that choose not to apply ahead but simply file as a 501c(4) once they know their actual expenditures. If they are truly a social welfare organizations, then they will have an existence beyond one tax year, and they can legitimately receive 501c(4) status, and inform their donors accordingly. The IRS should not be put in the position of being asked to pre-certify these organizations with inadequate information. Obviously the word of the organization can't be relied upon to make that determination.
None us are going to benefit from encouraging more dark money in politics.
I am as concerned as you about the release, in violation of internal IRS rules, of applications that were not yet approved . That seems very wrong to me. Propublica did use restraint, according to them, and carefully avoided releasing confidential information from the particular applications that they recognized should not have been released. On the other hand Propublica's job is investigative reporting. They are not going to pretend they don't have the information, and they shouldn't.
My personal view is there is far too much government secrecy and I'd like to see far more light shining on the CIA and NSA. These agencies may do far more harm than good. After reading Moynihan's book, I'm rather convinced that is the case, but how can we know with no information? We should realize, however, that it is not inconsistent to condemn both the CIA and the release of Plame's name by Libby, who worked in the White House and was convicted.
Beltway, I can strongly recommend Moynihan's book "Secrecy" to you. One of the most informative books that I've read, and a fascinating read as well. You know, he wrote this book in the last few years of his life. He would have never written such a book while still active in Congress or the administration. It is a refreshing and very candid look at what goes on behind our backs. From an amazon review:
Senator Moynihan, with many years of experience in the arcane world of congressional oversight of our intelligence agencies, shows how and why the American government classifies (i.e. withholds from public knowledge) an astonishing variety of information--when often the information that really matters is more likely to be found in your daily paper than in government archives. The most astounding revelation (of many) is why Omar Bradley, on behalf of the US Army, did not allow President Truman to know what the Venona intercepts of Russian intelligence communications revealed about the real degree of Soviet penetration of our government. Thus it was left to a bizarre cast of characters like the drunken Sen. McCarthy and the disenchanted Chambers and Bentley to give an ill-informed and partial picture of such penetration. Bradley's dutiful but obtuse territorial withholding of Army intelligence from his Commander-in-Chief deprived Truman of vital information that could have made a profound difference in waging the Cold War and averted collateral damage to domestic civility and polity. This sort of "classification" and "need-to-know" would poison American politics and skew American intelligence for fifty years. And if you don't think that the bureaucratic reflex to restrict, without good reason, the free flow of information isn't still harming this country, you had better read this cogent and powerful book. 
