IRS has 'no authority' 'to regulate speech,' says House Oversight's Biggs as panel requests docs

Just the News ^ | Updated: February 14, 2023 - 3:19pm | Natalia Mittelstadt

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) blasted the IRS on Monday for allegedly conducting "government surveillance" on Americans following a Just the News report on the agency's invasive questioning of an election education nonprofit, as the House Oversight Committee requested to see the underlying documents.

In action reminiscent of the Lois Lerner targeting scandal under the Obama administration when the IRS singled out conservative groups for audits, the Biden IRS last year subjected an election education nonprofit applying for tax-empt status to intrusive formal questioning the group believes infringed on its speech rights under the First Amendment.

Just the News reported the story on Sunday after reviewing documents exchanged between the IRS and the Adams, Baldwin, and Covey Foundation, Inc. (ABC) that showed the agency grilling the foundation about its views on elections and how it would prevent "inflammatory language" from being creeping into its educational activities.

The IRS questions are "further evidence that the Biden administration believes it has the authority to license thought and speech, and it doesn't," Phill Kline, a founder of the organization, told Just the News.

Responding to the story Monday on "Just the News, No Noise" TV show, Biggs, who sits on the House Oversight and Judiciary Committees, said the IRS is supposed to perform ministerial functions, such as receiving taxes, not regulate speech.

The queries in the IRS interrogatory are "a form of government surveillance of the American people," Biggs said, noting that he's the chairman of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Federal Government Surveillance. "There is no authority for the IRS to regulate speech."

[TChad]

“There is no authority for the IRS to regulate speech.” “That’s the FBI’s job.”

[frank ballenger]

LOL

Except they believe it.

[TLI]

The IRS told Just the News on Tuesday that "[d]ue to disclosure laws," the agency "cannot comment on private taxpayer matters."

Didn't stop them from this... "documents exchanged between the IRS and the Adams, Baldwin, and Covey Foundation, Inc. (ABC) that showed the agency grilling the foundation about its views on elections and how it would prevent "inflammatory language" from being creeping into its educational activities.

No sir, their "cannot comment on private taxpayer matters" shtick was perfectly OK with turning the thumbscrews onto Covey Foundation, Inc.

Folks need to fart in their general direction when some gub-bument hotrod starts throwing their self-proclaimed weight around.

Oh, and record them Project Veratas style and then engage in the time honored fbi/doj tradition of "leaks," maintaining frowny faces while advising the fed.gov pukes "Iz didn-do-nuffin."

.

[Jim Noble]

The IRS cannot regulate speech.

But, since Congress has written the tax code to grant or withhold taxation based on speech, the tax police need to enforce the law.

[ConservativeInPA]

Ya know, a flat consumption tax that replaces personal and business income taxes eliminates the IRS and there is no need to determine which organizations are for profit or not. The IRS can no longer be weaponized. Just sayin’.

[Bratch]

Inside Baseball Stuff About the House Oversight Committee and the Twitter Censorship Hearing

February 8, 2023 | Sundance | 269 Comments

CTH has never pretended or played the game of pretending, but several people have discussed the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing today on the Twitter censorship issue… and thus, some reminders and clarifications of inside DC politics are needed.

The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, hereafter called the House Oversight Committee or HOC, has a very specific function in DC circles that apparently too few understand.  Once again, let us be clear while trying to explain decades of false information founded upon arcane legislative outlooks.

This article is specific only to the House Oversight Committee.

Within Washington DC, the HOC has a very specific and unique function.  What Fox News is to corporate conservative punditry, so too is the HOC to the same DC system of pretending.  The House Oversight Committee is the “Chaff and Countermeasures” committee.  The HOC operates for both parties with the same mission.

The House Oversight Committee was/is created by the House legislative leadership to make money for the party in control of the Chair.  When the House Speaker is notified of a DC corruption issue, inside his/her office they will often be heard saying, “give it to oversight.”  The intent of that instruction is to give the issue to the HOC, so they can hold hearings, create soundbites and fundraise from the issue.

Making money for the party in control of the Chair is the primary function of the House Oversight Committee.  The HOC does not exist to create accountability or oversight; the HOC exists to exploit the issue for fundraising and satiate the base voters of the party in control of the Chair.  The HOC presents the illusion of accountability by constructing soundbites and member performances which are then broadcast on television for appearances to the voting audience.  It is essentially theater.

The HOC is a “general oversight’ committee, not a committee of “specific jurisdiction.”  Thus, the HOC is the vehicle where Democrats and Republicans publicly display their political initiatives, frame their narratives and then broadcast them on MSNBC, CNN (Democrats) or FOX NEWS (Republicans).

Depending on the issues at hand, the HOC committee members are generally those performance actors best known to the audience of both parties.  This is not accidental; this is by design.  Again, for emphasis, I am only talking about the HOC, a “generalized oversight” committee. Only this specific committee has this specific mission.

A hot button topic enters the committee ecosphere. Specifically trained staffers and performance artists, uniquely qualified to put on theatrical productions (both parties), are then deployed to assist the representatives in creating the soundbites that hopefully will go viral and assist them with fundraising and opportunities to say, “here’s what we are doing.”   Outlining this construct is not an exhibition in cynicism; this is the reality of what the HOC is designed and created to do.

When you see the HOC performing at their best, you will see lots of soundbites created.

The Chair of the HOC is always part of the House Speaker’s close inner circle.  From that association you will discover by training, by habit, and by consequence, the HOC framework is developed to sustain the process itself as an end result.   The questioning is the sum total of all accountabilities.  The performance is the interview; the conversation is the point; the smoke is the fire.

Oversight, in the HOC framework of narrative creation, has evolved into reveling in the endless process (a fundraising proposition) and, as a consequence, it completely ignores the end point, misses the bottom line, doesn’t actually SEE the subject matter, and never actually applies accountability toward what might be discovered.  This is why you end up with high blood pressure, frustrated with the questions not asked, and throwing bricks at the screen or monitors when viewing.

The point of HOC hearings is to create what are now described as “viral moments” that can be used to generate money.   The second, and lesser objective, is to give the illusion of accountability while not actually ever holding anyone or anything accountable.  See prior HOC reference points like Fast and Furious, IRS targeting, Benghazi which outline the latest intent with the Twitter censorship issue.

If you watch the HOC Twitter hearing through the prism of expecting some form of accountability for the violations of the First Amendment, you will be frustrated and disappointed.   However, if you watch the HOC Twitter hearing through the prism of how well the panelists will do at raising money from their performances, then you can evaluate the effectiveness; the proverbial winning and losing.

The HOC is designed by House leadership to perform the same basic function for both Democrats and Republicans.  The HOC committee assignments are selected based on the theatrical skills of each representative.  This is not to say the motives of the members are sullied or impure, it is simply to point out the motive of the committee itself is to generate fundraising from the skillsets of the members on the committee.

Once you fully grasp what the intent of the House Oversight Committee is about, and once you drop the expectation that any accountability in oversight is the intent, then you can watch the performances through the entertainment prism of partisan politics and genuinely enjoy them.  There are, after all, some exceptional soundbites and moments created by the hearings themselves.

The HOC is called the “Chaff and Countermeasures” Committee, because that’s essentially what the committee does.  It gives the appearance of targeting, steering the target to a controlled destination, and then distracting the audience from the outcome of accountability.

If sunlight is achieved, meaning the Mainstream Media cannot ignore the issue as presented and questioned, and if the general public become more familiar with the controversial subject matter or topic at hand, and if the party of the Chair can fundraise from the issue, then the committee has succeeded.  However, if you are looking for something to change as an outcome of any HOC hearing, you will be disappointed.

All of the insiders in Washington DC know this to be true; but, when discussing the HOC specifically, the insiders cannot violate the DC code and make this reality a part of the public consciousness.  To make this operational mission widely understood is to diminish the financial value of it.

Now, let’s ENJOY:

• Jim Jordan Confronts Ex-Twitter Executive Yoel Roth Over Suppression Of Hunter Biden Story

• 'I'm Asking A Very Specific Question': Jim Jordan Grills Ex-Twitter Exec About Shadowbanning

• Byron Donalds Confronts Ex-Twitter Execs With Email From Biden Team Calling For Tweet Removals

[TigersEye]

Oh, and record them Project Veratas style ...

Absolutely! And take it a step further and invite Project Veritas to investigate. They might take you up on that and they might even advise you on how best to do your part in it.

[Tupelo]

I really like Andy Bigg BUT, once again I think all we are seeing is the usual Republican Sturm und Drang. Fire & brimstone raining down on the usual Washington Kubaki Theater.
After which back to the usual business and the beat goes on.

[Eagle Forgotten]

But, since Congress has written the tax code to grant or withhold taxation based on speech, the tax police need to enforce the law.

Exactly right! You can deduct contributions to a nonprofit like a church, but the tradeoff is that the church can't endorse political candidates. Other nonprofits, like the NRA on the right or the Sierra Club on the left, do endorse, but contributions to them aren't tax deductible. As long as that's the law, the IRS has to look at the political activities of a nonprofit that applies for charitable organization status.

[Tom Tetroxide]

“The IRS cannot regulate speech.

But, since Congress has written the tax code to grant or withhold taxation based on speech, the tax police need to enforce the law.”

Isn’t there a code within the IRS code that prevents pastors, rabbis, and other religious leaders from speaking on political matters? If they do, they’ll lose their 501(c)(3) status.

[Jim Noble]

Isn’t there a code within the IRS code that prevents pastors, rabbis, and other religious leaders from speaking on political matters? If they do, they’ll lose their 501(c)(3) status

The IRS code which you refer to simply says, "No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon"

I think the Bible says that, too.