Patterico's Pontifications

7/12/2013

Lois Lerner in 2009: “If we lose the public’s confidence in the sector, we’ve lost it all”

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:33 am



A reader directs me to another unearthed quote from Lois Lerner, from this 2009 Wall Street Journal article:

Ms. Lerner urged charities to make certain governance practices public, to assure Americans they’re using their tax-exempt money appropriately. The tax-exempt sector’s stability “demands the public trust,” she said. “If we lose the public’s confidence in the sector, we’ve lost it all,” she said.

You could say the same thing about the IRS, Ms. Lerner.

P.S. The total lack of Big Media curiosity concerning Lerner has created a situation where newsworthy facts about Ms. Lerner and the way she ran her operation have not been reported since this scandal broke.

Yet.

Keep an eye on this space in coming days. As usual, if Big Media won’t do its job, we’ll do it for them.

65 Responses to “Lois Lerner in 2009: “If we lose the public’s confidence in the sector, we’ve lost it all””

  1. Ding.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  2. Its time for some impeachments to begin IMO.

    SPQR (768505)

  3. “You could say the same thing about the IRS, Ms. Lerner.” Nah, the IRS has the force of law. Charities have to ask for money; the IRS can seize.

    MT Geoff (a67ef4)

  4. Kim Strassel of the WSJ ties Lois Lerner, and her IRS tactics, back to the FEC where she previously resided.
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324879504578599783139351080.html?mod=djemEditorialPage_h

    askeptic (b8ab92)

  5. A lot of “charities” / tax exempt organizations, 501cs, whatever you want to call them are scams. Many are just bloated self enriching organizations even if they do good.

    One need not look further than the Kimberlin organizations

    Ms. Lerner may well have had the right mindset in those statements. It’s right to scrutinize who gets granted tax exempt status. The problem is who she/her organization chose to scrutinize shows clear bias and amounts to an unlevel playing field.

    Auntie Fraud (6c3682)

  6. I was always against impeachment, mostly for the sake of stability. Especially against Clinton. But now, the ONLY way to get the public’s attention to these issues, like unilaterally suspending constitution separation of powers, suspending laws, politicizing the DOJ, I think might be necessary.

    Patricia (be0117)

  7. it would be wrong to throw something at her stupid fascist head

    happyfeet (c60db2)

  8. But, but, but, we aren’t supposed to hold the government to the same standards as the private sector. After all, the government is there for our own good, to help us, don’t you know?

    The snarky Dana (3e4784)

  9. Lois Lerner, the IRS’s director of tax-exempt organizations, told a gathering of lawyers representing charities Monday [April 6, 2009] that scrutiny of nonprofits’ pay practices is likely to increase. Nonprofit leaders should be sure to practice due diligence in making sure their executive pay can be justified through data on comparable practices at similar organizations, she said.

    “If you’re not looking, we’re looking,” Ms. Lerner said at Georgetown University Law Center’s Representing & Managing Tax-Exempt Organizations conference here….Ms. Lerner added that the IRS’s exempt organizations division is about to get more staff, who will provide guidance to nonprofits on complying with new regulations, among other things. The staff, in the so-called “rulings and agreements” arm, also decides whether to grant tax-exempt status to organizations. Critics have long pointed to staff shortages at the IRS as one reason some charities fail to comply with various rules.

    Like I said, it wasn’t just Tea Party organizations, but the IRS subjected various other kinds of organizations to special scrutiny, and whatever was going on with newly established conservative nonprofits, built on something else.

    (Here, though, she’s talking about the question of whether executives at non-profits could be paid too much, not wheter some organizations could be too involved in politics to qualify for the label they seek)

    Sammy Finkelman (a4dbab)

  10. Sammy, I get it if nobody else does. A lot of tax-exempts are scams organized by professional fund-raisers. Sometimes, not only does not a single penny of donations go to the supposed charity, the tax-exempt even records losses and debts.

    nk (875f57)

  11. Sam,

    Lerner herself admitted that this was going on, and apologized for the lopsided scrutiny when she set up the sham question to answer at that press conference. Your attempt to confuse the issue is moot right from the start.

    Jeff Weimer (9cb4a8)

  12. And sure, it “was built on something else” – it was built on existing anti-fraud policies and procedures. That isn’t the problem. That it was applied in a blatantly partisan manner is the problem.

    Jeff Weimer (9cb4a8)

  13. Sammy,

    The Exempt Organizations division that Ms. Lerner headed has always been tasked with (1) processing applications by organizations that want tax exempt status, and (2) overseeing and auditing those organizations. Thus, you’re right that it’s no surprise some organizations received more scrutiny than others over the years. However, under Obama, the IRS’s Exempt Organizations division admitted it was targeting organizations that opposed Obama’s policies. In other words, it admitted it acted as an arm of Obama’s political campaign, instead of as an administrative arm of the executive branch.

    Part of Ms. Lerner’s job was to scrutinize tax exempt organizations. It wasn’t her job to use that power to focus on Obama’s political opponents.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  14. I see Jeff Weimer said it quicker and more succinctly than I did.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  15. SPQR,

    Impeachment is an interesting thought but, despite how closely they are linked, the press is technically not a part of the administration.

    max (131bc0)

  16. Go for it Pat!

    Bill M (aa6850)

  17. Sammy – To prove your point you would really have to show that other types of not-for-profits, apart from religious organizations we already know Lois had a hot button for, received the same type of intrusive questionnaires and lengthy delays in the receipt of their tax exempt certification. Were they asked if relatives of any employees planned to run for public office? Were they asked for the names and addresses of people who had gone through the organization’s training programs? Were they asked about the contents of their prayers, if any? Were their certifications contingent upon them agreeing not to protest in front of certain places or organizations?

    I have not heard any reports of that level of scrutiny of liberal organizations, have you?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  18. Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/12/2013 @ 1:58 pm

    Sammy – To prove your point you would really have to show that other types of not-for-profits, apart from religious organizations we already know Lois had a hot button for, received the same type of intrusive questionnaires and lengthy delays in the receipt of their tax exempt
    certification.

    I linked to two articles about this:

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323336104578501522735423256.html

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/05/us/politics/irs-scrutiny-went-beyond-the-political.html?pagewanted=all

    The “Be on the Lookout list wasn’t created for the Tea Party.

    Sometimes maybe this might be justified, as all organizations were similar, sometimes they discovered a common fraud, and then went after NEW organizations (because that’s all they had his power over) with the same general stated purpose.

    For a while, I read, new Jewish organizations in Brooklyn were having trouble getting tax exemption approval because some people previously had gone to LONG EXISTING organizations and offerd to make contributions in return for having 85% of the money kicked back to them [they’d get a tax deduction and maybe had even more of a purpose to that] and a certain fraction of these organizations had taken them up on their offer.

    When the IRS went after categories, I don’t think everybody got the dsame kind of treatments, but there were several different collections of organziations that got the slow treatment on tax exemption approval.

    Were they asked if relatives of any employees planned to run for public office? Were they asked for the names and addresses of people who had gone through the organization’s training programs? Were they asked about the contents of their prayers, if any? Were their certifications contingent upon them agreeing not to protest in front of certain places or organizations?

    What I am saying is whatever happened here built on something already going on.

    The political ones were newly formed right wing organizations, but there were also other kinds of targets:

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  19. Another IRS Scandal Waiting to Happen Federal Elections Commissioner Donald McGahn wants to rein in the bureaucracy of this sensitive agency. The political left is furious.

    For a sense of how these investigations can go off the rails, consider that Lois Lerner—before serving as the center of today’s IRS scandal—was the senior enforcement officer at the FEC. A Christian Coalition lawyer has testified that during a (sanctioned) FEC investigation in the 1990s—in addition to generating endless subpoenas, depositions and document requests, Ms. Lerner’s staff demanded to know what Coalition members discussed at their prayer meetings and what churches they belonged to. Once staff gets rolling, there is little to stop them.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  20. Impeachment is an interesting thought but, despite how closely they are linked, the press is technically not a part of the administration.

    That’s where Tar & Feathers come in.

    askeptic (b8ab92)

  21. SF, if you’re going to plagiarize me, at least give me some credit (comment #4).

    askeptic (b8ab92)

  22. Father Papas receives a call from the IRS.
    The IRS: Your parishioner, Gus Poulos, claims he made a $10,000.00 contribution to the church. Did he?
    Father Papas: He will.

    nk (875f57)

  23. Very good, you may have a cookie.

    askeptic (b8ab92)

  24. I found that article independently. Yes, it is the same article. But that article is not about the FEC. I thought you had linked to a different article.

    Sammy Finkelman (a4dbab)

  25. Ms. Lerner’s staff demanded to know what Coalition members discussed at their prayer meetings and what churches they belonged to. Once staff gets rolling, there is little to stop them.

    Since you’re aware of reports like that, which illustrate how politicized and political someone like Lerner is, I don’t know why you continue to believe (or feign a belief in) the apparatchiks of the IRS somehow being very different from one of its major bigwigs.

    Mark (897d7b)

  26. “What I am saying is whatever happened here built on something already going on.”

    Sammy – No, you are making the meaningless point that the IRS was already in the practice of conducting investigations of tax exempt organizations and reviewed trends in tax exempt organizations so the fact that they might look at newly former conservative tax exempt organizations is nothing unusual based upon prior practice, except for the scope, duration, and depth of the examinations targeting conservative tax exempt organizations which you have chosen to ignore.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  27. I am pleased Rico is choosing to focus on Lerner and the IRS.

    I worry tho that there are enough high-profile bloggers to cover all the important scandals.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  28. I wonder if this story that the big media is ignoring involves the IRS monitoring whether organizations are paying their taxes. It is ridiculous to think that a tax collecting organization would…collect taxes.

    Ian G. (b2d693)

  29. Recall the illegal campaign contributions, that came through the deactivated monitoring system, that curiously were not investigated.

    narciso (3fec35)

  30. Ian G. – Does the IRS collect tax from tax exempt organizations? Is that what you believe is being ignored?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  31. Is that organization illegally claiming tax exempt status?

    Ian G. (b2d693)

  32. Daley – you don’t really expect serial troll Tye to be honest, do you?

    JD (b63a52)

  33. Ian G., I’ve handled tax exempt applications for non profits. A tax exempt can legally accept donations with tax exempt status while they await a determination for a limited time.

    The IRS made sure that they delayed approval of the TEA Party associated orgs for more than that period.

    You remain a silly clown.

    SPQR (768505)

  34. I didn’t realize that a question could be dishonest, toonces. Enlighten me.

    Ian G. (b2d693)

  35. Shall we take that as a tacit admission that you are “Tye”?

    SPQR – it is just desperately trying to SQUIRREL to avoid Dem perfidy from Teh One’s administration.

    JD (b63a52)

  36. Shall we take that as a tacit admission that you are toonces?

    Ian G. (b2d693)

  37. You can’t “illegally” apply for a tax exemption. You can illegally assert that you are tax exempt when you are not so classified by the IRS but you can’t “illegally” apply.

    SPQR (768505)

  38. for example pine cones

    you are not supposed to throw pine cones at Lois Lerner’s stupid fascist head

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  39. Ian G. – Can you explain the point you were trying to make in comment #30 and how it relates to this post, please.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  40. for example also a pint of hagen dazs is not something you should bonk Lois Lerner on the goozle with

    especially not any of the “five” ones cause of those are my favorite

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  41. I think that Ian is asserting that the IRS treated all groups with TEA Party in their name equally, regardless of their political affiliation.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  42. Arrogant and self satisfied. Lois Lerner personifies the bureaucratic class.

    Which of course inspires those suffering under the weight of such bozos to want to beat them like a rented mule. But your mileage may vary. Would you believe a Turkish carpet?

    In any case she will float on through life, serenely convinced she has done nothing wrong.

    Comanche Voter (f4c7d5)

  43. 44-I think that Kevin M was waiting to drop that fun little quip for at least a week.

    Ian G. (b2d693)

  44. Ian G. – Does the IRS collect tax from tax exempt organizations? Is that what you believe is being ignored?

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9)

    ouch

    Colonel Haiku (8b7f3f)

  45. new heights of traveshamockery.

    Colonel Haiku (8b7f3f)

  46. and he seems to welcome the abuse.

    Colonel Haiku (8b7f3f)

  47. to each its own, I suppose…

    Colonel Haiku (8b7f3f)

  48. The IRS is required to determine whether an organization is tax exempt, but I thought that you knew that, Kernal.

    Ian G. (b2d693)

  49. Ian G. – Can you explain the point you were trying to make back in comment #30 and how it relates to this post, please.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  50. This post is supposedly a tease for a future post about a (I’m going to guess non-story) story. I was speculating.

    Ian G. (b2d693)

  51. Ian G. @53 – Speculating about what? You had something in mind. I don’t understand what you were talking about.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  52. I was speculating about the story that was going to be posted later. “Watch this space”…

    Ian G. (b2d693)

  53. Ian G. – Lerner ran a section of the IRS devoted to tax exempt organizations, which is why I followed up your comment #30 with my logical question in #32, which you answered with a question.

    You seemed to have a theory about Big Media ignoring the Tax Exempt division of the IRS not monitoring whether organizations are paying their taxes that you put out there in comment #30 and unless that comment was completely substance free and pulled out of your butt, I’m just trying to flesh your theory out a little.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  54. The Daily Caller looks at Ms. Lerner and the Humane Society.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  55. IRS lawyer Carter Hull:

    The chief counsel’s office for the Internal Revenue Service, headed by a political appointee of President Obama, helped develop the agency’s problematic guidelines for reviewing “tea party” cases, according to a top IRS attorney.

    In interviews with congressional investigators, IRS lawyer Carter Hull said his superiors told him that the chief counsel’s office, led by William Wilkins, would need to review some of the first applications the agency screened for additional scrutiny because of potential political activity.

    Previous accounts from IRS employees had shown that Washington IRS officials were involved in the controversy, but Hull’s comments represent the closest connection to the White House to date.

    One giant leap closer to the White House.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  56. Perhaps there is more to the beating certain TEA Party candidates took….
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jul/17/former-gop-senate-candidate-christine-odonnell-tol/

    If she was really a witch, wouldn’t she have been able to deal with this?

    askeptic (b8ab92)

  57. O’Donnell was just too radical for DE….
    http://hotair.com/archives/2013/07/18/christine-odonnell-a-victim-of-irs-abuse/

    This begs the question:
    What IRS shenanigans did Sharon Angle suffer?

    askeptic (b8ab92)

  58. Ms. Lerner is coming under renewed scrutiny.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  59. As is the limo driver in that deadly California limo fire.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  60. Lois Lerner again.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  61. Lois Lerner’s name keeps coming up in the IRS scandal.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  62. Amazing. The IRS is still targeting Tea Party groups 6 weeks after the scandal became public.

    DRJ (a83b8b)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1025 secs.