Lawsuit aims to prevent rerun of Obama’s weaponization of IRS against ‘tea party’ and Christians

Back in the runup to the 2012 presidential election, as Barack Obama was seeking to maintain an iron grip on the “fundamental changes” he wanted in the United States for another four years, his administration weaponized the IRS.

That was when a lot of those “tea party” organizations were being organized. Also there were a lot of Christian groups that, like the tea party groups, were seeking legal IRS status so they could advocate regarding the issues that exploded under Obama’s regime.

The IRS was used to identify those organizations, then deny them permission to operate. This was done by repeatedly asking long lists of questions – one interrogatory demanded to know the subject of the prayers of the group’s members – and more.

Also, when delays didn’t seem to provide the answer, the IRS simply declined to make a decision, making groups wait months, even years.

The result was that the speech of those organizations, which likely would have been highly critical of Obama, was suppressed.

Eventually, after the election, the schemes were exposed, and the IRS was called to account for the injuries it inflicted.

But the provisions in the IRS code used by Obama for that agenda still exist.

Which is why, according to a report at the Federalist, there’s a lawsuit to change them.

The action has been brought on behalf of Freedom Path, a “now nearly inactive conservative issue advocacy organization” that filed for tax-exempt status in 2011.

The IRS grilled the organization about its donors in 2012, but movement only began on the request when two years later the scandal created under the direction of then-IRS official Lois Lerner wound down.

Then finally, in 2020, nine years after application, the IRS denied the group’s nonprofit status based on its “Facts and Circumstances” evaluation – the agenda that was used then, and still exists.

Lex Politica attorney Chris Gober has been fighting for changes, the report said.

The case is back in court before Judge Jia M. Cobb in Washington soon.

The vague factors in the list are used by the IRS, which then can decide whether the group advocates over “issues” or whether it is involved in “political campaign” work, which precludes tax-exempt status.

Vague factors considered by the IRS include things such as whether, “The position of the candidate on the public policy issue has been raised as distinguishing the candidate from others in the campaign, either in the communication itself or in other public communications,” and “The communication is not part of an ongoing series of substantially similar advocacy communications by the organization on the same issue.”

The factors are subjective, so there are no clear standards for IRS officials making those decisions.

The circumstances, the report explained, are similar to those in the 2010 Supreme Court decision Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. The FEC then had been using a similar 11-factor test to decide if a group’s communication was used to express political advocacy, and the court said it was ambiguous and interfered with free speech.

Anthony Kennedy, then on the court, said in that decision, “The FEC has created a regime that allows it to select what political speech is safe for public consumption by applying ambiguous tests. If parties want to avoid litigation and the possibility of civil and criminal penalties, they must either refrain from speaking or ask the FEC to issue an advisory opinion approving of the political speech in question. Government officials pore over each word of a text to see if, in their judgment, it accords with the 11-factor test they have promulgated. This is an unprecedented governmental intervention into the realm of speech.”