The Washington Post

Political battle over targeting by IRS escalates again

House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) faces off with ranking member Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) after former Internal Revenue Service official Lois Lerner once again refused to answer questions at a congressional hearing. (The Washington Post)

A long-simmering battle over whether the Internal Revenue Service targeted conservative groups for extra scrutiny with political intentions has heated up again on Capitol Hill.

A House hearing erupted into shouts of frustration and recrimination Wednesday morning in a scene reminiscent of the early days of the probe into the IRS activities.

There again was Lois Lerner, the former IRS official who last year invoked her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, declining once more to testify before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

On Wednesday, Lerner again invoked the Fifth Amendment, ending days of speculation over whether she would testify after being subpoenaed.

The shouting began as a clearly frustrated committee chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) adjourned the hearing and the equally annoyed ranking Democrat, Rep. Elijah Cummings (Md.), objected.

“Mr. Chairman, you cannot run a committee like this,” Cummings said.

After his microphone was cut off, Cummings angrily shouted: “I am a member of the Congress of the United States of America. I am tired of this.”

He also described Issa’s investigation into the IRS matter as “one-sided” and “absolutely un-American.”

“We had a hearing,” Issa replied. “It was adjourned. I gave you an opportunity to ask your questions. You had no questions.”

And so it goes, a fight that for some observers feels never-ending, and makes the political battles over an alleged Benghazi coverup look tame by comparison.

After lawmakers spent months last year lobbing charges and countercharges, the IRS controversy appeared to quiet down.

But what, on some days, had seemed more like a political food fight than a focused bipartisan probe is blowing up again, this time with two pivotal factors looming. In addition to the approaching midterm elections, there is the controversy over a Treasury Department proposal to restrict the political activities of nonprofit groups with 501 (c)(4) tax status, or so-called social welfare organizations.

Count on both of those dynamics — not to mention any valid evidence that emerges on either side of the debate — to keep the IRS issue front and center.

Social-welfare organizations have pumped hundreds of millions of dollars into election-related ads since the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision, which said the government cannot restrict independent political expenditures from certain types of groups.

The IRS has said its problems partly stemmed from being overwhelmed by applications from such groups and a lack of clarity on how to deal with them.

Republicans, though they have not proven a political connection to the White House, believe the IRS scrutiny was an attempt by the Obama administration to silence conservative critics.

Democrats have said the problems were nothing more than hapless bureaucratic fumbling and missteps. They have also uncovered evidence that progressive groups were targeted for intense scrutiny.

Now the Treasury’s proposed rules have caused a firestorm of their own.

The draft guidelines would define a set of “campaign-related political activities” that could disqualify groups from tax-exempt status, but the draft rules place voter-registration and get-out-the-vote efforts into that category.

Those rules represent one of the few areas of common ground in this episode: Conservatives and liberals alike have said the plan goes too far, arguing that it could hinder free speech. The GOP-controlled House last week passed legislation that would block the proposed guidelines from taking effect.

Democrats are more intent on tweaking the planned changes than scrapping them. Last week, hours before a midnight deadline for public comment on the draft proposal — there were more than a 122,000 submissions at the time — a dozen Democratic senators recommended limiting the political activities of nonprofits to between 5 and 15 percent of their overall efforts.

IRS guidelines say the groups must be “primarily” involved in social welfare, suggesting they can participate in some level of electioneering.

The lawmakers also said in their letter that the definition of political activity should exclude voter registration and get-out-the-vote drives, but they argued that the free-speech concerns lack merit, saying “these rules would not restrict anyone’s right to speak, or to spend money to influence elections.”

The scandal has its roots in a report from Treasury inspector general J. Russell George that said the IRS had targeted nonprofit advocacy groups.

Lerner had foreshadowed the findings days before the report’s release when she apologized at a legal conference for the agency’s “absolutely inappropriate” actions toward groups with terms such as “tea party” and “patriot” in their names.

Republicans pounced, suggesting the IRS actions were part of an administration plot to silence President Obama’s critics. Their investigations through at least three committees have focused largely on proving their suspicions. Issa’s panel alone has held five hearings and interviewed nearly three dozen IRS officials.

The IRS has said its handed over to Congress more than 500,000 pages of documents.

Democrats contend that their GOP colleagues are pushing a false conspiracy theory based on cherry-picked facts. They stepped up their counter-campaign last month, questioning George’s independence.

Reps. Gerald E. Connolly (D-Va.) and Matthew Cartwright (D-Pa.) have asked a special watchdog to investigate whether George handled the probe fairly, suggesting the review focused too much on an IRS “be on the lookout” list that targeted exclusively right-leaning groups, while ignoring older lists that contained some terms associated with progressives.

George defended his audit in an interview, telling The Washington Post, “We noted there were other ‘be on the lookout’ lists that included other types of organizations, but that was not the initial charge of the review and not the focus.”

Republicans have shifted the focus back to the administration, questioning its placement of an Obama campaign donor help lead a Justice Department investigation into the targeting matter.

The inspector general’s review and the Obama administration may both deserve further examination, but lawmakers, Republicans and Democrats alike, have muddied the investigations with efforts to score political points.

Where it will all end is unknown.

After Lerner invoked her Fifth Amendment right Wednesday, House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) said she should be held in contempt — a move that would intensify the controversy.

Josh Hicks covers Maryland politics and government. He previously anchored the Post’s Federal Eye blog, focusing on federal accountability and workforce issues.

The Freddie Gray case

Please provide a valid email address.

You’re all set!

Campaign 2016 Email Updates

Please provide a valid email address.

You’re all set!

Get Zika news by email

Please provide a valid email address.

You’re all set!
Show Comments
The South Carolina GOP primary and the Nevada Democratic caucuses are next on Feb. 20. Get caught up on the race.
Past South Carolina GOP primary winners
South Carolina polling averages
Donald Trump leads in the first state in the South to vote, where he faces rivals Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio.
South Carolina polling averages
The S.C. Democratic primary is Feb. 27. Clinton has a significant lead in the state, whose primary falls one week after the party's Nevada caucuses.
62% 33%
We'll have half a million voters in South Carolina. I can shake a lot of hands, but I can't shake that many.
Sen. Marco Rubio, speaking to a group of reporters about his strategy to regain support after a poor performance in the last debate
Fact Checker
Sanders’s claim that Clinton objected to meeting with ‘our enemies’
Sanders said that Clinton was critical of Obama in 2008 for suggesting meeting with Iran. In fact, Clinton and Obama differed over whether to set preconditions, not about meeting with enemies. Once in office, Obama followed the course suggested by Clinton, abandoning an earlier position as unrealistic.
Pinocchio Pinocchio Pinocchio
The complicated upcoming voting schedule
Feb. 20

Democrats caucus in Nevada; Republicans hold a primary in South Carolina.

Feb. 23

Republicans caucus in Nevada.

Feb. 27

Democrats hold a primary in South Carolina.

Upcoming debates
Feb 13: GOP debate

on CBS News, in South Carolina

Feb. 25: GOP debate

on CNN, in Houston, Texas

March 3: GOP debate

on Fox News, in Detroit, Mich.

Campaign 2016
Where the race stands

To keep reading, please enter your email address.

You’ll also receive from The Washington Post:
  • A free 6-week digital subscription
  • Our daily newsletter in your inbox

Please enter a valid email address

I have read and agree to the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.

Please indicate agreement.

Thank you.

Check your inbox. We’ve sent an email explaining how to set up an account and activate your free digital subscription.