Just because they're after you doesn't mean you're not paranoid

You know, if you really wanted to, you could make a strong argument now that President Obama is running a frightening and repressive.. hell,  un-American, even... administration and I wouldn't complain too much about it. At least I wouldn't complain so long as you kept to the actual frightening and repressive policies the President is pursuing. Like, for example, persecuting whistleblowers like Edward Snowden. Or mandating that all federal employees actively snoop and snitch on each other's personal lives. Or indiscriminately killing people with flying robots.

But even when encouraged by Bobby Jindal to "put on your big boy pants" and make an effective case against the President, Republicans can't even seem to figure out which leg goes in first.  Instead of focusing on the actual scary things the administration is doing, Republicans prefer to fixate on the actually not so scary things they imagine it does.

Take their so-called IRS scandal, for example.  It took a while for someone to finally say so, but clearly this was never about partisan political persecution.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Internal Revenue Service’s screening of groups seeking tax-exempt status was broader and lasted longer than has been previously disclosed, the new head of the agency said Monday.

An internal IRS document obtained by The Associated Press said that besides “tea party,” lists used by screeners to pick groups for close examination also included the terms “Israel,” ”Progressive” and “Occupy.” The document said an investigation into why specific terms were included was still underway.

In a conference call with reporters, Danny Werfel said that after becoming acting IRS chief last month, he discovered wide-ranging and improper terms on the lists and said screeners were still using them. He did not specify what terms were on the lists, but said he suspended the use of all such lists immediately.

“There was a wide-ranging set of categories and cases that spanned a broad spectrum” on the lists, Werfel said. He added that his aides found those lists contained “inappropriate criteria that was in use.”

Werfel’s comments suggest the IRS may have been targeting groups other than tea party and other conservative organizations for tough examinations to see if they qualify. The agency has been under fire since last month for targeting those groups.

I don't mean to downplay the significance of this too much. It's probably not the IRS's finest hour.  But it's also not a deliberate attempt at political retribution. What was going on here was an attempt to catch up with the post-Citizen's United universe of money in politics (Not to mention outright fraud.)

An instructive case in this was provided a few years ago by Lamar's look at how Gene Mills' Louisiana Family Forum appears to shuffle money between its tax deductible 501c3 and its politically active 501c4.

It’s not an insignificant amount of money. The LFF is apparently spending six figures every single year on consulting services that are not disclosed. This begs the question: Who is getting paid? And while the nuances in the tax code between 501c3s (tax-deductible non-profits) and 501c4s (advocacy arms) may seem impossibly labyrinthine, it’s actually quite simple: Under the current tax regime, a 501c3 that effectively operates as a lobbying group may attempt to shield itself from exposure by setting up a 501c4, as long as the 501c4 raises its own funding. The problem for the Louisiana Family Forum, insofar as I see it, is that it’s engaging in an obvious shell game, operating its 501c4, almost entirely, with the tax-deductible donations it receives from its 501c3. You can do that, no doubt, but there is no obvious advantage: Every penny that a 501c4 receives from a 501c3 is subjected to laws that govern 501c3 expenditures. Or, at least, it’s supposed to be.

I need to be careful here: I am not accusing Mr. Mills or the Louisiana Family Forum of doing anything illegal. I’m merely suggesting that they’re being shady, that, to me, it appears as if the organization has, for years, acted like it has something to hide– whether it’s shielding the full disclosure of hundreds of thousands of dollars in consulting services or ineptly exploiting the distinctions between 501c3s and 501c4s. But more importantly, I strongly believe that, as a matter of public policy, we should not provide a tax advantage to a small, politically-connected cabal of powerful lobbyists who pretend as if their alleged religious convictions entitle them to special treatment under the law.

LFF was precisely the kind of new animal the IRS was trying to figure out. And there were hundreds more like it. It just happened that many of these new creatures most of them, in fact were right-ish flavored politically. 

The IRS did not only pick on conservative groups. It also flagged liberal groups, using word searches for “progressive” in their names, though fewer. Data just released of 175 approved applications reveals that about 122 were conservative and 48 liberal or simply publicly involved, with six indeterminate. Right-wing or conservative groups, however, were responsible for more than 80 percent of the roughly $260 million spent by 501(c)(4)s on the 2012 election cycle.

Though some of the 300 groups under investigation complained about IRS harassment, tax experts and former IRS officials contacted by the New York Times said the groups’ actions “provide a legitimate basis for flagging them for closer review.”

None of this will stop Republicans from continuing to play victim, though.  Just like today's Supreme Court decision to nullify Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act won't stop them from pushing through a whole new raft of voter suppression measures next year even as they cry the whole time about "voter fraud."