How to Solve the IRS Problem

    Of course, the Republican party isn't interested in fixing the problem anyway. The real reason the IRS has run into problems here is because in the aftermath of Citizens' United, they've seen a more than 100% increase of applications for tax exempt status.

    "Since the Supreme Court’s controversial 5 to 4 ruling in the Citizens United v. FEC case in 2010, the IRS has seen a more than 100 percent increase in the number of groups applying for 501(c)(4) status — the section of the federal tax code that governs non-profit groups dedicated to social welfare — from 1,500 in 2010 to 3,400 in 2012."

      "Not all 501(c)(4) engage in political activity of any kind — the United States Chess Federation, for example, is a fairly apolitical group. Political 501(c)(4) groups are required to adhere to certain rules, including that they not be “primarily engaged” in electioneering activity. In a failed attempt to sort out which groups were apolitical and which needed additional scrutiny, the IRS reportedly tried a variety of ineffective screening methods, including flagging “patriot” groups as well as groups that focused on making “America a better place to live.”

     http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/05/14/2006851/how-real-disclosure-laws-could-help-fix-the-irs-problem/

     Certainly it's strange that the phrase making America a better place to live was flagged. Yet Citizens' United really has opened up a Pandora's Box. 

    At this point the 501(c)(4) rules are something of a joke anyway: the Karl Rove's Crossroads is tax-exempt. There's no record of any of these scrutinized Tea Paty groups actually being denied tax exempt status. Yet, at the end of the day, the problem is not that there aren't enough groups with tax exempt status, but clearly the opposite. 

   "As long as it is not their primary purpose, Citizens United allows (c)(4) groups to spend unlimited funds on “independent expenditure” ads aimed at swaying voters and thedeadlocked Federal Election Commission allows these groups to avoid any disclosure of who bankrolls these advertisements. And since the 2002 law governing political advertisements came before the ruling, it does not adequately address the specific issue of disclosure for independent expenditure ads."

     "Because of this loophole, groups seeking to influence elections through campaign ads groups and to avoid having to make their donors public have often registered as (c)(4)s, rather than assuper PACs (tax-exempt groups which can also raise and spend unlimited amounts on “independent expenditures,” but must make public all large donors). After bankrolling super PACs in the 2012 elections, mega-donors including millionaire investor Foster Friess and billionaire casino mogul Sheldon Adelson have vowed to keep future political spending secret, by giving to opaque 501(c)(4) committees instead. And good government groups have demanded the IRS investigate whether (c)(4)s like Crossroads GPS, the Commission on Growth, Hope and Opportunity, and the American Future Fund are really just super PACs in disguise."

     What's really needed is proper disclosure-in a uniform way:

     "The guidelines for what is and is not an acceptable level of political activity for a (c)(4) hasnever been clear — a vague “primary purpose” test — and has been little enforced. With limited staff and resources, even before massive furloughs forced by the sequester, the IRS has proved ill-equipped to monitor which (c)(4)s are really (c)(4)s and which ones are pretenders."

     "Congressional Republicans have thus far blocked efforts to require disclosure of political ad spending by (c)(4) groups. The proposed DISCLOSE Act and the Follow the Money Act would help bring parity to the disclosure rules governing independent campaign ads, without impeding on the legitimate activity of (c)(4)s. But if groups like Crossroads GPS were required to disclose the major donors behind their $70 million-plus campaign ad spending, there would be little incentive for them to masquerade as social welfare groups."

I    "If Congress simply treated all spending on independent campaign advertisements uniformly — allowing voters to know who was really speaking and to evaluate the speech accordingly — the IRS would not have to use these clearly imperfect tests to decide what is and isn't a legitimate 501(c)(4)."

     So this is the real locus of the problem, not some imaginary conspiracy against Tea Party groups-who may actually have a higher propensity to try to sneak groups with an elective agenda.