We should only have to tell them what they really need to know....Credit, public domain

The Internal Revenue Service has just announced new rules about who has to disclose donations to non-profit groups. The basic point appearing to be that certain non-profits do not attract tax relief at the level of the donor when a donation is made. Thus there’s no reason for anyone to report to the IRS – there’s no tax issue at stake. Seems logical enough to me but certain politicians are complaining about this. It does make one wonder why:

Certain tax-exempt groups will no longer be required to provide the names and addresses of donors to the IRS on annual forms under guidance that the Treasury Department and IRS released Monday evening.

The guidance reflects a priority of conservatives, who have been pushing for the IRS to bar collection of the donor information as part of their efforts to prevent the agency from targeting groups for their political beliefs.

Well, that’s actually a good reason. For we did indeed have a certain amount of political direction of who was being investigated as to their donations, didn’t we? But do note that the donors aren’t gaining a tax break to this specific type of organisation. So, well, this seems to be fair enough:

But the move frees labor unions, issue advocacy organizations, veterans groups and other nonprofits that do not receive tax-exempt money from meeting confidential disclosure requirements set in place decades ago.

“Americans shouldn’t be required to send the IRS information that it doesn’t need to effectively enforce our tax laws, and the IRS simply does not need tax returns with donor names and addresses to do its job in this area,” U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said in a statement.

Again, this all seems entirely fair. Sure, the IRS might need certain information to enforce the tax laws. But if it’s not needed for that purpose then why should the IRS have that information? It being rather the foundation of the American ideal that government should only be doing those things which must be done by government, no?

But there are politicians who are complaining about this all the same:

The decision immediately sparked a backlash, with Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) saying Tuesday that he’ll oppose the nomination of a new IRS commissioner over the move.

“It’s the latest attempt by Secretary Mnuchin and Donald Trump to eliminate transparency and keep officials and lawmakers from following the money,” Wyden said in a statement. “That’s why I’ll be opposing Charles Rettig, nominee to be IRS commissioner, unless Mr. Rettig commits to restoring this critical disclosure requirement.”

Well, yes. At which point perhaps we should allow the cynic in all of us to rear his ugly head. Or the realist, if you prefer. It’s well known that donors donate – in general that is – across the political landscape. A gentle, if not genteel, placing of light bets so as to ensure that whoever wins access is always maintained. It’s that which our cynic – us as cynic or realist perhaps – might explain the Good Solon’s insistence upon transparency and openness here. After all, if everyone has to publish lists of who has donated to each and every issue then that’s a great prospecting list for your own campaign fund travails, isn’t it? Just imagine if you had to telephone around blind trying to scare up the tens of millions required for re-election?

Subscribe to The CT Mailer!

8
Leave a Reply

Please Login to comment
3 Comment threads
5 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
3 Comment authors
Tim WorstallSpikejgh Recent comment authors

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Spike
Member

To be more specific, the IRS under Obamoid commissioner Lois Lerner investigated nonprofits that had names containing “Tea Party” or other hints of opposition to big government. It required them to disclose their members (and take other absurd steps such as prove that any religious affiliation was sincere) before establishing their tax-exempt status, the IRS obviously aware that disclosing to government the names of anti-government donors would make them stop donating. Drying up these funds was an overt attack on one base of support for Romney’s challenge to Obama in 2012. Lerner’s hard disk was “lost,” likewise all copies of… Read more »

jgh
Member
jgh

A paper trail for political donations should be done via a law on political donations, not via trying to bend laws on tax collection where there is no tax to be collected.

jgh
Member
jgh

On a tangent, our host has people other than himself posting articles here, but I can’t find how a humble scribbler could submit their mots for consideration.

Spike
Member
jgh
Member
jgh

Hmm. That just takes me to the front page. Will try some different browsers.

jgh
Member
jgh

Nope, Chrome, IE, FireFox, all send me to the main page.

Spike
Member

Hmm, the first of my articles I emailed to Tim. Maybe he set up my account after that. You might also point to your username/avatar in the upper right corner and pull down “Edit My Profile”. Try ticking “Show Toolbar when viewing site”. Beyond that, Tim will have to reply.