Note: This blog's templates will be updated this afternoon to a responsive design bringing it in line with MiamiHerald.com.

At that time, we will also change to the Facebook commenting system. You will need to log in with a Facebook account in order to comment.

« Gov signs elections law fix, reversing GOP changes and ending early primary | Main | Marco Rubio files amendment to punish IRS agents who leak taxpayer docs »

Bill Nelson questions "social welfare" designation of nonprofit political groups

@MarcACaputo

The IRS' tea party-targeting scandal got its second congressional hearing today, this time in the Senate Finance Committee, where top Democrats like Florida Sen. Bill Nelson felt as if the tax agency was letting too many political groups wrongly hide behind nonprofit status for "social welfare" groups.

Of course, the IRS tried to stop it but wound up profiling some conservative groups. And that runs afoul of the agency's efforts to remain nonpolitical.

Republicans and conservatives smell a political cover-up.

The IRS worker at the center of the case, Lois Lerner, is going to plead the Fifth Amendment.

The American Spectator notes that President Obama met with an IRS union chief the day before the agency began targeting nonprofit groups for review.

Obama, incidentally, said he knew nothing of the incident until it was publicized. And the Treasure Department, so far, said it was only advised of what happened once an Inspector General began examining the case.

During today's hearing, Nelson wanted to know why the IRS didn't do more.

"How could you all in the IRS allow the tax breaks funded basically by the taxpayer [spent] on these political campaign expenditures?" Nelson asked. "Can you all shed some light, please?"

"What we've seen in the course of the last two campaign cycles is enormous money running through through these c4 organizations...I understand the king’s English, and it says the promotion of social welfare does not include direct or indirect participation or intervention in political campaigns. Now, how you interpret that to say that that does allow some intervention in political campaigns is beyond me.”

Comments