The IRS Was Wrong — But Many Political Groups Should Not Be Tax-Exempt

  • Share
  • Read Later

Let’s start with the obvious. Those IRS employees who singled out conservative groups for scrutiny over their tax-exempt status were wrong, wrong, wrong.  Any whiff of politics at the agency is unacceptable, and this is far more than a whiff. In time, we shall see how far up the agency food chain the scandal goes.

But this unsavory episode should also shine a light on the law that gives tax-exempt status to political groups of all ideological stripes, often described by the code section that grants their exemption—501(c)(4)s.  That is especially true since one outcome of this scandal will be to give these partisan groups even more freedom to operate outside of at least the spirit of the law.

The only way to stop the proliferation what are often-secret campaign money laundries is for Congress to change the law that grants these groups this form of tax-exempt status.

(JOE KLEIN: The IRS Mess—and the GOP’s Campaign to Paralyze Washington)

As I wrote in a blog post back in 2010, the tax law is relatively clear about what a (c)(4) can and cannot do. The IRS defines these groups as “civic leagues, social welfare organizations, and local associations of employees.” Their net earnings are supposed to be used for charitable, educational, or recreational purposes. They may lobby and participate in political activities but their primary purpose must not be campaigning.

Thanks to smart lawyers who have exploited an outdated law, the tax-exempt status of many groups may be perfectly legal. But others simply do not pass the smell test.  Does anybody really claim the primary activity of these organizations is anything other than getting their favorite candidates elected to political office, or defeating those they disagree with?

If you have doubts, here is what one group,, says about itself on its website:

We are going to build on the foundation of success we used to elect more governors, grab more seats in the House of Representatives and force the Washington establishment to respect the demands of “We The People.”

In contrast to public charities organized as 501(c)(3)s, contributions to (c)(4)s are not tax-deductible. So why would they want (c)(4) status? One reason: It allows them to hide the names of their donors.

In the past, these groups would have claimed tax-exempt status as Sec. 527 organizations. There are no contribution limits, no restrictions on who may give, and no limits on how they spend their money (except they cannot advocate for a specific candidate). But 527s must disclose the names of the fat cats who use them to finance political campaigns.  And groups that thrive on political dark money will do almost anything to avoid transparency. So they walked through the (c)(4) door opened by the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision.

(MOREObama: Targeting by IRS is ‘Outrageous’)

Because the law is so ambiguous and because IRS scrutiny of these groups is so fraught with political landmines (as the recent unpleasantness proves), the IRS had been reluctant to review this issue all.  Now it seems, the agency took a much-needed hard look at some groups, but did so in a clumsy and seemingly partisan way.

Regrettably, by apparently focusing only on conservative (c)(4)s, the IRS has only succeeded in making all these groups—on the political right and the left– even more immune from investigation.

The solution, then, is for Congress to change the law. Many of these groups are not social welfare organizations by any reasonable standard. They clearly exist for political purposes. Many are unabashedly partisan—supporting only Democrats or only Republicans.

Last month, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) introduced a bill to eliminate the tax-exempt status of professional sports leagues, such as the NFL (yes, Virginia, the NFL is tax-exempt).  That’s an excellent idea, but maybe he ought to expand it to include practitioners of America’s other favorite sport—politics.

Howard Gleckman is Resident Fellow at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center and editor of its fiscal policy blog TaxVox, where this article previously appeared.