The full story about what happened and when regarding the IRS treatment of Tea Party groups has yet to be revealed, but Wonkblog has a variety of links related to it, so it may be the best we can do right now.
Some highlights:
Core Issue: " . . . the IRS was using the term “tea party” and its associated language as a flag for organizations that might be more political than the 501(c)4 designation permitted.
Key questions:
- Were conservative groups the only ones targetted?
- Was the Cincinnatti office the only one involved?
- Who made the decision? And what did higher up do abou tit?
- Are Tea Party groups really social welfare organizations that shoudl qualify for tax exempt status?
- What is the appropriate outcome?
- Is Congress partially responsible because they did not provide sufficient guidelines for determining which groups quzlify as 501(c)(4)'s and which do not?
Other random observations:
- One third "of all House committees that are now “investigating some aspect of the Obama administration”
- Scandal politics have taken over Capitol Hill. Dysfunction continues.
- According to one political scientist, conditions may be right for scandals to take over the public imagination. These are more likely to happen if a president's approval ratings are very low among the opposition party identifiers.
- If scandals take over, it simply fits the typical story of second presidential terms. They tend to be scandal ridden, nothing new here.
