"These non-profits are called 501(c) organizations, and are given IRS exemption from taxes. In return, theoretically, they are supposed to be non-political."

No, no a thousand times no; per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/501(c)_organization#Types:

There are 27 types of 501(c) organizations, ranging from the familiar "501(c)(3) — Religious, Educational, Charitable, Scientific, Literary, Testing for Public Safety, to Foster National or International Amateur Sports Competition, or Prevention of Cruelty to Children or Animals Organizations" to the obscure "01(c)(27) — State-Sponsored Workers' Compensation Reinsurance Organization".

The fuss here, to my knowledge, is about 501(c)(4) organizations, "Civic Leagues, Social Welfare Organizations, and Local Associations of Employees". Quoting Wikipedia:

"501(c)(4) organizations are generally civic leagues and other corporations operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare, or local associations of employees with membership limited to a designated company or people in a particular municipality or neighborhood, and with net earnings devoted exclusively to charitable, educational, or recreational purposes. 501(c)(4) organizations may lobby for legislation, and unlike 501(c)(3) organizations they may also participate in political campaigns and elections, as long as its primary activity is the promotion of social welfare. The tax exemption for 501(c)(4) organizations applies to most of their operations, but contributions may be subject to gift tax, and income spent on political activities - generally the advocacy of a particular candidate in an election - is taxable. Contributions to 501(c)(4) organizations are usually not deductible as charitable contributions for U.S. federal income tax, with a few exceptions. 501(c)(4) organizations are not required to disclose their donors publicly."

So, everyone, please, recognize that these are not the theoretically apolitical 501(c)(3) organizations you may be most familiar with (Wikipedia goes into some detail on this) but organizations that are explicitly allowed to engage in political activity, with corresponding disadvantages in losing tax deductibility for it.

To use the example I'm most familiar with, the National Rifle Association, the NRA proper is a 501(c)(3), it runs target shooting, training, safety instruction, a whole lot of apolitical stuff. Their lobbying organization, the Institute for Legislative Action, is a 501(c)(4). They have a separate political action committee (PAC) that following the usual rules donates (now small, since the limits weren't inflation adjusted) sums directly to politicians (which I take to be mostly symbolic, not "buys the politician" ... if for no other reason than few if any stay "bought" :-). And PACs are a type of non-profit organization as well.

Any situation in which the government flouts the law/is "above" the law is a dangerous situation of importance to everyone. And the higher up the governmental chain they are, from the local precinct to the federal level, the greater the danger.

A rule of law, rather than a rule of authoritarianism, is one of our greatest advancements. Like traffic signals, it is predicated on, and requires, most everyone to agree to that system. If an individual decides to not follow it, such as the "sovereign citizen" silliness, we experience a minor degree of harassment on a small scale. But when the federal government does it, our entire way of life is imperiled.

I would say it's potentially more dire than that. Suppression of political opposition in a "democracy" (we're actually a constitutional republic, the constitutional part is especially important to the rule of law), that is, excluding groups wholesale from the political process, is fantastically dangerous. What peaceful choices are left to these people?

"A rule of law, rather than a rule of authoritarianism, is one of our greatest advancements"

"Our"? Authoritarians do not set and enforce the Rule of Law? I think you're creating more of a divide between the two concepts than exist in reality.

>Any situation in which the government flouts the law/is "above" the law is a dangerous situation of importance to everyone.

That's why it's so important to have harsher penalties for people that abuse power. Unfortunately the opposite seems to be true.

The IRS has claimed that 'low level staffers' [1] are to blame for this. I find that chilling. It probably means that 'low level staffers' with an axe to grind have been wielding this power in unfair ways across the board. This just highlights a case where politics was an issue. But where else might someone have been treated unfairly for a petty reason? We should hold the IRS to a higher standard than this.

[1] http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-irs-improperly-ta...

Seems to me the IRS is just doing their job. They are responsible for ensuring people don't take advantage of non-profit exemptions by spending their tax-free donations on political campaigns. Which seems like something one might expect from "Tea Party" groups, whose goal is to elect politicians they support. Besides, if you follow the IRS rules like a good citizen, what do you have to worry about? Aren't you already paying for attorneys and tax advisors, specifically for situations like these?

See my top level comment, we're talking about 501(c)(4) organizations, which, by the way, are allowed to engage in political activity but not with tax-free donations and are explicitly forbidden to donate directly to politicians, or, as I recall, "coordinate" expenditures.

And the actions of the IRS went way beyond even normal investigations, into explicitly forbidden fishing expeditions demanding membership lists.

And then "it's not the crime, it's the coverup"; the Administration swore up and down nothing targeted was happening in the run up to the 2012 election, and now, surprise, surprise, it turned out they lied.

>>Administration swore up and down nothing targeted was happening in the run up to the 2012 election, and now, surprise, surprise, it turned out they lied.

This is jumping to conclusions; as of today there is no evidence anyone outside of the IRS had knowledge about these alleged targetings. It is not as if all politically motivated acts require being orchestrated by top politicians, partisan politics can happen at all levels of government. Of course when they are, it does make for much juicer news.

Lois Lerner, head of the IRS division overseeing tax-exempt groups... acknowledged that the behavior was “absolutely incorrect, it was insensitive and it was inappropriate. That's not how we go about selecting cases for further review. The IRS would like to apologize for that.” http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/item/15375-irs-admits-i...

Exactly. This is why warrantless wiretapping should be perfectly legal. Hell, I record all my calls and forward them with the rest of my email to the NSA to do my part.

The IRS has a sordid history of doing this for political purposes. The IRS targeted anti-war groups during the Johnson and Nixon administrations [1]. Was that justifiable by your reasoning, or does it only apply to groups that you put in scare quotes?

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/1989/09/03/magazine/misuse-of-the-irs...

Arbitrary and discretionary enforcement of the law(and granted power) is bad and abuse of power.

If republican organization get 60% of the politically motivated donations they should get 60% of IRS eyeballs' time. If they get less they are getting off easy, if more they are punished unfairly.

Looks like Hacker News is starting to veer into politicial bullshit territory again. And it was going so well for about a week!

Flagged.