Redstate

How much money did you donate last year to charities that you knew were under investigation by the Senate Finance Committee?

Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you're dead.

I think there is probably a high-probability these guys are crooks.

They are being INVESTIGATED. If there is nothing wrong, nothing will happen.

"I will look for people in the cast of John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and my friend the late William Rehnquist – jurists of the highest caliber who know their own minds, and know the law, and know the difference." - John McCain

__________________________________________________

The blogger formerly known as "Alexham"

Includes giving large sums of money to the chief "minister" so he can drive a BMW and have a huge house on tax-free income, then yes, quite possibly.

"I will look for people in the cast of John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and my friend the late William Rehnquist – jurists of the highest caliber who know their own minds, and know the law, and know the difference." - John McCain

cite the formula, or theorem, or federal or state statute, that suggests exactly how much money a minister should make? Because, I'm sure there are lots of ministers out there who would like to know. And while you're at it, please tell me exactly what kind of car the minister should drive. I've looked around, and I see GM, Ford, Chrysler, etc., produce all kinds of cars, but I've never seen one called "Pastor's Car". I'm sure if they made one, Pastors would buy it - assuming, of course, that it meets with your, or the statute's, or whatever other formula or theorem you are about to cite which tells us exactly how much a minister is allowed to make, and what he is allowed to drive, allows.

Irrelevant.

Again, if they are actually stopping him from speaking, I'd object, but to investigate to see if he is exploiting loopholes or actually violating the law is fine. There is NOTHING wrong with that. Nothing.

Please explain to me the rational that says Congress cannot investigate potential abuses of the law that they may want to legislate in response to.

I don't know what evidence Grassley has, but they aren't being prosecuted. If it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck, walks like a duck, it might be a duck.

The pure paranoia on this thread is kind of disturbing. It's one thing to oppose McCarthyism, it's another entirely to say the Govt. has no interest in making sure people aren't abusing the tax system, even if the system should be reformed.

"I will look for people in the cast of John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and my friend the late William Rehnquist – jurists of the highest caliber who know their own minds, and know the law, and know the difference." - John McCain

That describes most of the people that I have met that push the social gospel.

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

Who's to determine whose theology is right?

As far as making huge sums of Money, when is Chuck Grassley going to drag Elizabeth Dole and every former chairmand and CEO of the Red Cross the United Way The American Heart Association, The American Lung Association...etc. etc. etc. before his committee.

As a Christian, I believe the preachers he's calling to be complete and utter charlatans but I don't think it's a good Idea to set the president of Senators going on witch hunts because you don't like a pastor's teaching or any member of any organization that teaches a certain world view!

CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”

there is probably a high-probability

Hence the term "RandomGuy".

Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you're dead.

They are being INVESTIGATED. If there is nothing wrong, nothing will happen.

Then I'm sure you wont object and will eagerly comply if the police and the IRS kindly request that you answer a few questions and provide documentation from the past few years regarding your finances, bills, purchases, and property. After all, it's only an INVESTIGATION! If there is nothing wrong, nothing will happen!

...especially if I was claiming a special exemption that gave me tax-free status, of course not!

"I will look for people in the cast of John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and my friend the late William Rehnquist – jurists of the highest caliber who know their own minds, and know the law, and know the difference." - John McCain

Then let Grassley bring forth such evidence as is indicative that these organizations are engaged in some sort of tax fraud. The argument being made in the posting is that there is no "indication" - merely "suspicion", arising, evidently, from third hand accounts taken from newspaper articles.

A meaningful and potentially fruitful avenue of discussion for you is to state what kind of "indication" you believe is necessary for the government to request detailed financial information and for the requestee to be obligated to respond cooperatively?

I will say it would be interesting to learn more about exactly what requirements such organizations currently have with regard to any reporting or validation of tax exempt status. I would assume they must be providing something to validate such status on a periodic basis. Surely such filings could provide ample evidence for a Grassley or an IRS functionary to produce sufficient cause to request additional information or launch an investigation.

He doesn't have to bring forward evidence now. It's an INVESTIGATION. You Investigate in order to GET evidence.

Even if there is nothing illegal, the investigation is perfectly valid. It's entirely possible he won't find anything illegal, but will find practices he'd like to legislate against, i.e. loopholes, other potential abuses, etc. That's what Congress does. His fixes might be good ideas, might be bad, who knows? But that's another issue.

"I will look for people in the cast of John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and my friend the late William Rehnquist – jurists of the highest caliber who know their own minds, and know the law, and know the difference." - John McCain

but I believe what the committee is doing is called a fishing expedition in legalese.

Night Twister
Veterans For McCain

Congress is not a prosecutor's office. It can go on fishing expeditions because it's not just looking for law breaking, it's also looking for ways it might want to change the law.

"I will look for people in the cast of John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and my friend the late William Rehnquist – jurists of the highest caliber who know their own minds, and know the law, and know the difference." - John McCain

As far as I'm concerned, no one should have tax-exempt status. That'll keep the government out of their business where it doesn't belong.

But this isn't a fact-finding mission, it's an inquisition. The churches are well within their rights (See Constitutional Amendment #5) to tell them politely to GTH.

Night Twister
Veterans For McCain

Kind of silly to change the law before you understand how it is being abused, isn't it?

And you're wrong. Try ignoring a Congressional subpoena and see what happens. It's called contempt of Congress.

"I will look for people in the cast of John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and my friend the late William Rehnquist – jurists of the highest caliber who know their own minds, and know the law, and know the difference." - John McCain

I didn't say they should ignore it. I said they should say "you can't have what you're asking for".

Night Twister
Veterans For McCain

They could if they want to, but I doubt it would hold up in court.

"I will look for people in the cast of John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and my friend the late William Rehnquist – jurists of the highest caliber who know their own minds, and know the law, and know the difference." - John McCain

the Constitution doesn't apply to Congress?

I know you aren't saying that. What the committee could do is grant them immunity for their testimony. At that point they would be compelled to give it, but could not be prosecuted if they found something illegal.

Night Twister
Veterans For McCain

Which constitutional right is Grassley violating? The right to claim a huge tax exemption and then keep your books from being investigated if there is a reasonable suspicion that there are loopholes being exploited that they might want to legislate against?

I've never heard of such a Constitutional right. Sounds like something Souter would come up with.

"I will look for people in the cast of John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and my friend the late William Rehnquist – jurists of the highest caliber who know their own minds, and know the law, and know the difference." - John McCain

You simply don't know what you are talking about. There is already a provision in place to govern that which you complain of. The IRS is authorized, at Section 7611 of the tax code, to initiate investigations of church activity if they have reasonable belief that the church may not be exempt, or is engaging in activities that may be taxable. Since you are apparently unfamiliar with the IRS, let me assure you that they are absolutely ruthless, and they have a rather distinct distaste for exempt organizations, and exempt Christian organizations in particular. If they had any credible information of one of these specially hated "health and wealth" gospel organizations violating law, they would pursue it to the ends of the earth. This is, plain and simple, a no basis witch hunt. It is Grassley abusing his position to score cheap political points. Short version, RG - it is not illegal, nor is it a violation of tax exempt status, to pay a minister even unreasonable amounts. It would only cross a line if the IRS were able to prove that the sole purpose of the organization was to line the pockets of the minister, which, quite clearly, is not one of the permitted 501(c)(3) purposes. Given all the outreach, and literally hundreds of millions spent by these organizations, evidently the IRS does not believe it has a case. And please, the "news reports" contain all the information they need to determine the supposed improper expenditures. Want to stop it? Use the existing framework, or propose new legislation. Anything else is an unwarranted massive expansion of federal government authority. Of course, you are likely OK with that, as long as it is flogging those dastardly Christians.

Making assumptions makes an a$$ out of U & Me.

B. You are apparently just not getting it. Such a law may be deemed to be insufficient in Grassley's eyes. Probably in mine too if these crooks are still getting away with it.

C. These people are not "Christians". They are con men with Bibles. That doesn't mean they don't have the freedom to be con men, perhaps, but they don't deserve tax exempt status.

"I will look for people in the cast of John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and my friend the late William Rehnquist – jurists of the highest caliber who know their own minds, and know the law, and know the difference." - John McCain

I'm not willing to allow Congress Critters unfettered investigation powers into anything they "deem to be insufficient" - especially when there is an existing framework, and there is no mystery about the activity that is alleged to be taking place.

"Yeah, he is."

"Did he say something about how the 9th means that we should frame questions other than in the form of 'where in the Constitution is your right to that?'"?

"Yeah, in the second sentence of the body of the post."

"He is getting so predictable."

"Yeah."

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

Article 1 of the Constitution gives them that power.

"I will look for people in the cast of John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and my friend the late William Rehnquist – jurists of the highest caliber who know their own minds, and know the law, and know the difference." - John McCain

Say "the government was granted this power in this Article and Section of the Constitution" rather than "where is the right of private citizens to *THAT*?" and I will be a happy, happy camper.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

Which constitutional right is Grassley violating?

How about the Separation of Church and State? The reason the Church enjoys tax exempt status in the first place is because Congress put it in the Constitutional Amendment in 1913 that gave the Government the power to levey and income tax because they didn't want to cause a conflict between that amendment and the First Amendment. Now it's been twisted and it's being used as a way to regulate speech in our churches and chill religious freedoms.

You are one of the absolutists here on the so called "Separation of Church and State" as it's currently being interpreted censoring any public display of Christian speach anywhere in the public square!

My question is this Random...how do you square these two totally opposite and incompatible positions?

Personally I think your anti Christian Bigotry is plainly on display for anyone to see!

CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”

that should be decriminalized because many of us have felt it in our hearts at one time or another.

lesterblog.blogspot.com

I mean you've got to exist that H exists and that some people are going to end up there before you could tell someone to head off there forthwith.

And given what's being preached today in America, I'm not sure how many churches today actually take H seriously.

And by the way, how do you tell someone politely to GTH? There's nothing polite about H to my limited knowledge...

And Rightly So!

Did you forget to include a snark tag?

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

In that case, I don't see why you would object to letting the police and IRS inspect your detailed financial records. They may not have any evidence yet, but that's why they're asking for you to cooperate, right? To see if they can find some evidence? They don't need any evidence now, it's just an INVESTIGATION. It's entirely possible that they may find something they want to fine or arrest you for, and hey that's part of their job, right? That's what the police and the district attorney do, right? Prosecute, fine and jail people.

So, it's perfectly valid, right? You wouldn't refuse their request, would you?

A. Congress isn't a prosecutors office. B. I'm not claiming any sweeping tax exemption. The situations are totally different. C. Even all that said, no.

"I will look for people in the cast of John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and my friend the late William Rehnquist – jurists of the highest caliber who know their own minds, and know the law, and know the difference." - John McCain

Although now I'm not sure why you were throwing out caveats earlier that you're now saying wouldn't matter as far as whether you would be compliant with such a request:

If they had some indication I was cheating on my taxes ...especially if I was claiming a special exemption that gave me tax-free status ...

It's not illegal, bottom line. They can investigate if they want to. If they had some reason to investigate me, i.e. they think the way I keep my finnances might be technically legal but against what they wanted/want in the tax system, that's just fine. I wouldn't care.

I think they have the right to investigate these people, I think there is enough reason to suspect that even if what they are doing is technically legal (maybe, maybe not) that they are doing some hanky panky that Congress would like to legislate against.

"I will look for people in the cast of John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and my friend the late William Rehnquist – jurists of the highest caliber who know their own minds, and know the law, and know the difference." - John McCain

Understood. Your position is that Congress can launch an investigation of any American organization or any American citizen based on a suspicion that there may be some legislation that they'll want to write afterwards.

I find it intriguing in a not so good way, but appreciate you engaging and clarifying!

It may or may not be a good use of their time, but it's certainly always been their power as far as I can tell provided they don't violate Constitutional rights. I've never heard of a Constitutional right to not provide evidence of how you pay your taxes when you are given a huge tax exemption.

"I will look for people in the cast of John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and my friend the late William Rehnquist – jurists of the highest caliber who know their own minds, and know the law, and know the difference." - John McCain

So if I make a web page saying your a tax cheating pedophile, no proof just rumors, then they have every right to investigate you on just my word alone? Very Stalinesque no?

( 1.50, -1.08)

I'm a strict constructionist.

Show me in the Constitution where it says such a thing is not allowed.

"I will look for people in the cast of John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and my friend the late William Rehnquist – jurists of the highest caliber who know their own minds, and know the law, and know the difference." - John McCain

CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”

Shouldn't he be required to issue a list of possible crimies or loopholes being exploited in order to force testimony?

Would you honor the order to appear if you received a summons with no basis on which to investigate you?

CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”

I agree Senator Chuck Grassley and his supporters are crooks. He must be investigated.

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

However, I'm even less a fan of Congressional fishing expeditions/witch hunts, especially by legislators who have no history of interest in the welfare of the attendees of these churches.

The IRS is fully equipped to deal with any issues relating to abuse of tax-exempt status.

We have district attorneys who could deal with violations of criminal laws. Or the civil courts for those who allege non-criminal injuries.

The only role that Congress would possibly have would be hold public hearings if we had witnesses willing to testify publically with data regarding the inadequacies of current laws and recommendations for legislative changes.

Congress was not created to act as a Star Chamber.

And Rightly So!

Abusing the law need not be illegal. You can "abuse" a law by figuring out a way around it.

If some loophole were discovered that would allow Microsoft to declare its self a church and get tax-exempt status, it would be legal, but it would be an abuse of the law, and Congress would rightly legislate to prevent that loophole. (I'm not saying this is possible, it's a hypothetical)

"I will look for people in the cast of John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and my friend the late William Rehnquist – jurists of the highest caliber who know their own minds, and know the law, and know the difference." - John McCain

Reread the last two paragraphs of my previous comment. If Congress wants to change a law to close loopholes (this goes on all the time), they hold public hearings and mark up a bill.

They don't launch an investigation and demand access to all the company's records for actions that (according to your example) were legal.

And again as I said earlier, if there was an issue of illegality, then the executive branch is the appropriate venue for pursuing these issues, where due process is operative.

And Rightly So!

NT.

It's absolutely brilliant that this post is a few posts up from that other one.

Well played. My Irish is back down.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

No, but it's also incumbent on the government not to give tax breaks to people who are using a tax exception to line their own pockets.

"I will look for people in the cast of John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and my friend the late William Rehnquist – jurists of the highest caliber who know their own minds, and know the law, and know the difference." - John McCain

You're just like Grassley. You're assuming their guilt based on your personal disdain for their theology.

Shame on you.

__________________________________________________

The blogger formerly known as "Alexham"

Not a prosecution.

Hard to have evidence without an investigation, isn't it?

"I will look for people in the cast of John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and my friend the late William Rehnquist – jurists of the highest caliber who know their own minds, and know the law, and know the difference." - John McCain

where is line between "fair compensation" and "lining their own pockets"? Who gets to decide? You? The IRS? The contributors? A controlling legal authority? Who? Where is that line?

You know, the people who make the laws? They get to decide.

Talks about it a lot in the Constitution. Article 1...a few other spots.

"I will look for people in the cast of John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and my friend the late William Rehnquist – jurists of the highest caliber who know their own minds, and know the law, and know the difference." - John McCain

but you did not answer the main question. I'll grant you that Congress can decide. Please show me where they have done so. Certainly not in "Article I". Maybe you mean the tax code? You know, the one the IRS monitors? I'm a criminal tax attorney - which code citation are you talking about? I am not aware of any code section regulating "Pastor's salary" or "Pastor's car". Or maybe it's something else? Care to try again, or just want to respond with some more snark?

Tax.Exempt.Status.

You only get it if you follow certain guidelines. If you are buying your pastor gold chains, BMW's, and nights at the Ritz, decent chance you are either A. Breaking the law, B. Abusing the law in a way that Congress might want to legislate in response to.

I know I don't favor tax exempt status for "religions" that are making their ministers Millionaires.

"I will look for people in the cast of John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and my friend the late William Rehnquist – jurists of the highest caliber who know their own minds, and know the law, and know the difference." - John McCain

What part of section 501(c)(3) do you claim these organizations violated? Is it violated because you "don't favor tax exempt status for "religions" that are making their ministers Millionaires"? What are the ministers permitted to make? Thousands? Ten Thousands? What? Name the guideline, other than your own sensibility, that is being violated. If you can't name any guideline, how can you possibly say that there is ANY chance that the named ministries have violated anything? And if indeed a law (which shall at this time remain unnamed) has been "abused", wouldn't it be a better idea to amend the law to correct the "abuse", rather than go on grandstanding witch hunts that do nothing more than rally people to the "abusers" cause?

Even if there is no limit, even if there is no violation, Congress may want to make one. That's the ENTIRE POINT.

That might be a good idea, it might be a bad idea, but I tend to think that not allowing for tax exemptions for organizations that pay hucksters millions under the guise a charitable organization is a good thing.

You shouldn't be able to declare your money making organization a church and make it tax free. Obama, for example, shouldn't be able to declare himself a minister and go around making millions on speeches and get tax-exempt status. If Grassley suspects that these kinds of abuses are happening, I think he's right to investigate.

"I will look for people in the cast of John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and my friend the late William Rehnquist – jurists of the highest caliber who know their own minds, and know the law, and know the difference." - John McCain

The power to tax is the power to destroy.

It might be insufficient. That's the whole point. He wants to tighten up the laws.

"I will look for people in the cast of John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and my friend the late William Rehnquist – jurists of the highest caliber who know their own minds, and know the law, and know the difference." - John McCain

through the organization most responsible for enforcement of these laws - the IRS. The information can then be shared with Congress by the IRS pursuant to section 6103 of the code. it isn't as if he does not have a remedy. He just wants to see if he can dispense with that pesky probable cause thingy. Let him follow the existing law. And again, there is no mystery about what the expenditures are. They are all over the very newspapers Grassley cites in his requests for info. He needs no further information to determine that the current laws are "insufficient". If he thinks they are, let him propose the legislation.

__________________________________________________

The blogger formerly known as "Alexham"

"I will look for people in the cast of John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and my friend the late William Rehnquist – jurists of the highest caliber who know their own minds, and know the law, and know the difference." - John McCain

"I tend to think that not allowing for tax exemptions for organizations that pay hucksters millions under the guise a charitable organization is a good thing."

What evidence do you have that any of the six ministries in question are operated by "hucksters"? Or do you just throw around disparaging names for fun?

__________________________________________________

The blogger formerly known as "Alexham"

You seem to be confusing calls for an investigation with pronouncements of guilt. You can do better than that.

And I think you're being intentionally disingenuous if you don't think that folks like Benny Hinn don't merit a bit more scrutiny than your average religious leader or even your average televangelist. His ministry is viewed with considerable skepticism by folks both inside and outside of mainstream Christian circles. The (gasp) tax-exempt organization , a Christian organization devoted to bringing greater financial accountability to Christian organizations, is sympathetic to Grassley's investigation, for instance.

Amen!!!

"I will look for people in the cast of John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and my friend the late William Rehnquist – jurists of the highest caliber who know their own minds, and know the law, and know the difference." - John McCain

Or allowing the IRS to do its job.

If Hinn is guity of violating the law, then let him have it. But targeting him because he sells prayer cloths, or holds some theological position outside mainstream Christianity, is beyond the pale.
__________________________________________________

The blogger formerly known as "Alexham"

IT IS NOT ABOUT BREAKING THE LAW NECESSARILY.

It is about the law potentially not working like its suppose to, and thus requiring changes.

"I will look for people in the cast of John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and my friend the late William Rehnquist – jurists of the highest caliber who know their own minds, and know the law, and know the difference." - John McCain

you are on record of approving of Congress investigating anything and everything they like without any need of showing probable cause of any kind. I understand your insane lunatic position. I don't agree with it, but I certainly understand it.

to believe Congress should investigate before it legislates. It should just legislate at random.

There is nothing that prevents Congress from investigating. it is given all powers to legislate under Article 1, and legislatures have been able to investigate since the dawn of time across the world.

You seem to think it's illegitimate just because you don't like it. Unfortunately for you, not liking something doesn't make it illegal, unethical or anything else. If you disagree he should be investigating, you should convince the people of Iowa to vote him out of office.

"I will look for people in the cast of John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and my friend the late William Rehnquist – jurists of the highest caliber who know their own minds, and know the law, and know the difference." - John McCain

since Article I says absolutely nothing about investigating. You are completely missing my point. It matters not to me if these entities are investigated - as long as they are investigated by the proper authorities. Congress went to a great deal of effort to set up the Internal Revenue Code. The spend billions of dollars enforcing it, collecting the taxes, and putting in jail those they sufficiently hate - they rightly absolutely insist that all of us follow it. Is it now too much to ask that Congress follow the same law it puts people in jail for not following? It's very dangerous to give any branch of government unfettered power. And while Article I surely gives Congress power to legislate, I don't see anything giving it the power to investigate. And as far as enforcement goes, and since you and Grassley seem to think that there are possible violations here, any attempt to enforce these measures are likely to be thwarted by 4th and 5th amendment concerns. While they could give immunity, that would be a little self defeating, don't you think? And then we are right back to the procedure that I have outlined above, which you and Grassley apparently find so draconian. I get that you don't like these organizations. That still is no excuse for granting unfettered, unauthorized discretion to Congress.

And you know it. It isn't a "prenumbra", but a fundamental duty of the legislature. The Constitution doesn't say what giving the President "Commander in Chief" powers means either, but if someone said the President didn't have the right to command the armed forces to attack because the the Constitution doesn't say "The President can order the Military to attack" I'd tell him he's full of crap.

If you cannot investigate, you cannot legislate. You cannot or at least should not legislate at random. You need to investigate so you can understand what is being legislated.

This is just silliness. You're not taking this seriously. You're just trying to justify your policy preferences.

"I will look for people in the cast of John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and my friend the late William Rehnquist – jurists of the highest caliber who know their own minds, and know the law, and know the difference." - John McCain

so I'll leave the final word to you. What I know is that you clearly hate these organizations, and are so blinded by that hate that you cannot recognize the vast expansion of Congressional authority that you are supporting, where there is already a reasonable mechanism in place to get the same information. When the investigation intrudes upon individual and organizational rights, it is lunacy to say that there is no way to stop it, or reason to object to it. And stop with the legislating blind nonsense. There is no mystery about what is supposedly going on here. Those ministers don't hide their use of jets, and limos, and massive homes, etc. Their tax returns are filed every year just like everyone else's. Grassley, you, I, and anyone else paying attention knows exactly what is going on. The only decision to be made here is if current law is sufficient, a decision that does not require anything further. Yes, your position leads to lunacy. But I at least agree with you that this is all silliness...though obviously not in the way you suggest.

If you cannot investigate, you cannot legislate. You cannot or at least should not legislate at random. You need to investigate so you can understand what is being legislated.

Grassley has the entire tax code at his fingertips and a congressional staff that can help him read it. The tax code, I presume you would agree, defines what we think is a just method for taxing organizations, and exempting organizations. The "rules of the game", as it were.

I can't think of any information Grassley could obtain from these organizations that is necessary to his review of the tax code and his determination of whether the rules are just or not. If there are loopholes that can be exploited, he can find them right there in the legislative code, and then he can introduce legislation that addresses whatever he perceives to be deficient.

He doesn't need information from these organization to do that. Of course, just reviewing, analyzing, and tweaking the tax code, quietly and without pomp and circumstance, doesn't get him any press coverage or any time on C-SPAN, does it?

To be fair, I think Grassley is free to make this request. I think it's a waste of time and money, but there's no harm in his wanting to learn more about these organizations and asking for this information. Hey, there's nothing wrong with me asking them for that information either! But if they tell him to buzz off, then he needs to get his head back into the tax code where he already has all the information he needs to determine if the rules are adequate as they are or if there are ways to exploit them that need corrected.

is a just method for taxing organizations, and exempting organizations."

OF COURSE NOT.

Grassley is a LEGISLATOR. He may think the rules are unfair, unjust, letting people claim exemptions unfairly, etc. THAT IS THE MAIN REASON FOR INVESTIGATING. Finding any illegalities are separate.

Legislators change the rules of the game. That's what they do. That's why they are called lawmakers.

"I will look for people in the cast of John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and my friend the late William Rehnquist – jurists of the highest caliber who know their own minds, and know the law, and know the difference." - John McCain

He may think the rules are unfair, unjust, letting people claim exemptions unfairly, etc.

Well then, let him investigate the rules, i.e. the tax code. If there are loopholes or inadequacies in the rules, they'll be plainly evident in the existing legislation. You haven't advanced any reason whatsoever that Grassley needs to obtain information from these organizations.

It's really a backwards approach. If the rules are such that a tax exempt organization is allowed to defraud its membership in some manner, then that will be evident from the rules. It may be none of these organizations are exploiting a particular "loophole" but the loophole may still be evident in the tax code.

If Grassley has no evidence of illegal activities and if as you claim he's not trying to find any, then he already has everything he needs to address whether he can find inadequacies with existing tax code. He doesn't need to waste my money or any citizen's time with cajoling information out of these organizations, although yes, he is free to go ahead and blow some taxpayer cash if he wants .

Yah... you don't really know how the law works.

Ever heard of unintended consequences?

There is simply no way to see how the law would work as applied until you see it in action. You might know a lot of it, but never all of it.

"I will look for people in the cast of John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and my friend the late William Rehnquist – jurists of the highest caliber who know their own minds, and know the law, and know the difference." - John McCain