OBAMAGATE

[IQS.RLOW]

I disagree, most Australians don't know or care about Watergate or Nixon except to know that "he was bad" Whitlam is far closer to home and the understanding of what his administration did is the yardstick of incompetence rather than corruption that Nixon is known for.

Australian politicians are either smart enough to appear incompetent but not corrupt or Australian voters are dumb enough to believe it...I'll take the later.

[IQS.RLOW]

So AM should have named this thread Hillarygate?

There is always a scandal during the 2nd term of a president. This may or may not be it. Let's wait and see.

Sound like an excuse to me...doesn't DU offer enough alternative debate for you nowadays?

[AnimalMother]

This scandal has three distinct threads, of which the lies and incompetence surrounding Benghazi are only one.

I would say that the IRS targeting scandal will be the biggest one as far as US domestic politics goes, because a lot of people will see how such things could affect them directly. The phone traffic analysis would be number two, because of its potential to take away the sympathetic cover from the media that Obama has been receiving.

So far, no direct connection between Obama himself and either of those two has been established - but his Administration is neck-deep in it. If anyone spills the beans about his office being directly involved, watch out!

Of course, with Benghazi, both Obama and Clinton were directly involved in the cover-up, but the other two scandals are closer to home for most Americans. And they show such extraordinary abuse of government power as well as contempt for democracy, that many Americans might wake up.

[AiA in Atlanta]

It looks like the IRS was not just targeting conservative groups, but was targeting political action groups who may have been violating the tax exemption guidelines.

[AnimalMother]

The IRS was specifically targeting conservative groups - and asking ridiculously detailed questions which had far more to do with politics than revenue. Liberal groups got a pass.

And Democratic representatives were egging them on.

This thing is only going to get bigger, as more information comes out.

[Jovial_Monk]

About as sensible as this:

[AnimalMother]

In new developments, the acting IRS commissioner has been fired - the first casualty of the scandal? But he claims he wasn't really fired. Who's telling the truth?

The IRS interrogators demanded that conservatives reveal their facebook posts, their reading habits, and their private thoughts. That's a bit odd for a taxation agency, isn't it?

"Representative Dave Camp, chairman of the powerful Ways and Means Committee, charged top IRS officials, including former commissioner Doug Shulman, of lying to Congress over the targeting of tea-party groups."

Much more on Drudge.

[boxy]

Here's what we knew in 2011 and 2012: Citizen's United had opened the floodgates for unlimited outside spending in elections. Groups associated with the Koch Brothers, Americans for Prosperity, Glen Beck, and Karl Rove were registering new organizations under section 501(c)(4) of the tax code at an overwhelming rate, creating shell companies that could be used to launch blistering campaign ads behind the cloak of anonymity.

Section 501(c)(4) is meant for non-profit groups that engage in some political activity. Groups like the Sierra Club were moved from 501(c)(3) (traditional tax-deductible charities) to section 501(c)(4) (not-for-profit, but not tax-deductible) in the 1960s because they were pressuring the government not to put a dam in the Grand Canyon. For decades, traditional nonprofit advocacy groups have had to think carefully about c(3) and c(4) status. 501(c)(3)s can raise a lot more money, since it's tax-deductible. But 501(c)(4)s can be more effective with the money they raise, since it can be used to hold government accountable.

Donors to either type of nonprofit can remain anonymous. And therein lay the problem. New political groups have started to abuse 501(c)(4) status in order to provide cover for huge, wealthy donors.

Leading up to the 2012 election, we actually knew all this pretty damn well. Stephen Colbert won a Peabody Award for his ongoing coverage of the topic. If you followed the antics of Stephen, Jon Stewart, Trevor Potter and "Ham Rove," you knew that big donors had found a nice loophole to shelter their political activity.

Those 501(c)(4) applications create a moral problem for our democracy -- if we don't know who's funding the attack ads, then we don't know what influence is being bought and sold along the way.

Figured there was some reason like that behind it, when I read about all those tiny little political groups whining about being asked to justify their tax free status.

[AnimalMother]

Sure, because George Soros and other wealthy donors to Democratic causes don't exist.

Meanwhile, the IRS scandal continues to grow. Since nobody here seems to want to acknowledge it, I'll just leave it to Drudge and others to spread the word.

If Obama gets directly linked to this, it might be the downfall of his president. We'll see.

[AiA in Atlanta]

There are those that are saying that the IRS was simply enforcing a 1950's era law. Given how political churches are in the US the IRS needs to examine their tax-exempt status.