Support from an unlikely quarter?

In a post which is sympathetic to the looming crackdown on NGOs Fritz Schranck makes a pregnant point here:

From a political perspective, it also makes sense for the Bush Administration to begin to upgrade IRS audit activities relating to public interest non-profit organizations (the so-called NGOs) by starting with a relatively apolitical charity such as TNC.(emphasis added -- DS)

Right or wrong, it's interesting that I am not the only one who assumes at the outset and with no prompting that it is not some low-level career GS-12 who made the decision to initiate a tax audit on The Nature Conservancy. Fritz --- while ok with the audit --- also assumes that there is approval and may even be impetus for it at the highest political level. An audit of such a prominent organization cannot be done casually, especially if there is not likely much to be found.

Picking up Fritz' remark, I'd suggest that if the Bush Administration truly had an apolitical intent then it would have chosen an even less-political NGO to look at first...maybe the Red Cross, United Way etc etc, for instance. I don't think that TNC qualifies as even remotely apolitical, involved as it is very intensely in local land use dynamics.

Now just to be clear, I am not accusing anyone in the Bush White House of using ordinary government functions to further their own political ends. I have absolutely no information to indicate that the White House would act politically. In fact, call it merely an implausible scenario if you believe it absurd that a White House under any party would use every tool at its disposal to further its own political goals.

Comments

[Alan Sullivan]

David, a lot of Republicans I know have contributed to TNC, which has always had a different philosophy from other environmental organizations: it's a private-sector initiative. These Repubs were deeply embarrassed when shady practices were publicised. If there's political pressure involved--and there may be--my bet is that it has nothing to do with partisan politics. It's simply a desire to clean house.

[David Sucher]

I hope you are right, Alan. I truly do. There is nothing worse than the bad cop in the police station to hurt all cops or the "shady" (though that's a new one, you realize -- even the two WaPo stories cited by Tyler do not imply any wrongdoing of that seriousness) practices.

What I find truly unfortunate about the 3 WaPo articles I've read so far is that they contains no specific allegation of activities which would be illegal...merely business/management judgment with which one can disagree. No? Of course that's a legitimate story by itself --- "Big Charity Screws Up" --- but that is not cause for a tax audit, I wouldn't think, unless there was violation of law or some political motive.

As I said very clearly in the first post (and of course this applies even if the Bush motivations are totally political) let the chips fall...if TNC or staff has done wrong -- either legally or in terms of managerial judgment -- it has to be held to account.

[TM Lutas]

During the Clinton administration, there was a furor over politically inspired audits. The NRA, Heritage Foundation, American Spectator, Freedom Alliance, National Center for Public Policy Research, American Policy Center, American Cause, Citizens Against Government Waste, Citizens for Honest Government, Progress and Freedom Foundation, Concerned Women for America, and the Sand Diego Chapter of the Christian Coalition were all put under the IRS microscope.

At the time, people asked around and there was no similar rash of left wing foundations being audited. The list above is from a lawsuit filed by Judicial Watch on behalf of the Western Journalism Center which was also audited. The WJC accountant, when asking about some odd documents the IRS wanted was flat out told by the IRS agent, a Mr. Thomas Cederquist that the audit was political and decisions would be made on the national level.

There were other suspicious audits, such as the personal audit of the inconvenient bureaucrat Billy Dale in the Travelgate scandal and the infamously litigious Paula Jones but it's arguable whether they're on point in a discussion of NGO audits.

This is the recent IRS history of nonprofit audits that I believe was referred to in the phrase "to begin to upgrade IRS audit activities relating to public interest non-profit organizations" in the sneaking suspicions article.

If we are entering into an era of Republican retaliation for the Clinton audits, it's bad news for the country and I would fully expect a lawsuit to be filed to address things. In fact, I would expect resignations or impeachment would be in order.

Too bad there were all too few leftists saying the same during the Clinton administration. If things had been resolved in a bipartisan fashion then, there might be enough comity and trust established in the IRS that Democrats wouldn't be worried about NGO audits under a Republican presidency. There might be a decent level of trust that the IRS had a department culture that would be able to resist a President ordering illegal audits. In that case audits that came down would be presumed legitimate.