U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

21–123 2017

HEARING WITH ORGANIZATIONS TARGETED 

BY INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE FOR 

THEIR PERSONAL BELIEFS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JUNE 4, 2013 

Serial No. 113–FC08 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Ways and Means 

( 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS
ii 

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS 

DAVE CAMP, Michigan, Chairman 

SAM JOHNSON, Texas 

KEVIN BRADY, Texas 

PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin 

DEVIN NUNES, California 

PATRICK J. TIBERI, Ohio 

DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington 

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana 

PETER J. ROSKAM, Illinois 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

TOM PRICE, Georgia 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida 

ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska 

AARON SCHOCK, Illinois 

LYNN JENKINS, Kansas 

ERIK PAULSEN, Minnesota 

KENNY MARCHANT, Texas 

DIANE BLACK, Tennessee 

TOM REED, New York 

TODD YOUNG, Indiana 

MIKE KELLY, Pennsylvania 

TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas 

JIM RENACCI, Ohio 

SANDER M. LEVIN, Michigan 

CHARLES B. RANGEL, New York 

JIM MCDERMOTT, Washington 

JOHN LEWIS, Georgia 

RICHARD E. NEAL, Massachusetts 

XAVIER BECERRA, California 

LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas 

MIKE THOMPSON, California 

JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut 

EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon 

RON KIND, Wisconsin 

BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey 

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York 

ALLYSON SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania 

DANNY DAVIS, Illinois 

LINDA SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

JENNIFER M. SAFAVIAN, Staff Director and General Counsel 

JANICE MAYS, Minority Chief Counsel 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS
iii 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Advisory of June 4, 2013 announcing the hearing ................................................ 2 

WITNESSES 

Dianne Belsom, President, Laurens County Tea Party ........................................ 13 

John C. Eastman, Ph.D., Henry Salvatori Professor of Law and Community 

Service, Chapman University School of Law; Chairman, The Claremont 

Institute’s Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence; and Chairman of the 

Board, National Organization for Marriage ....................................................... 17 

Becky Gerritson, President, Wetumpka Tea Party ............................................... 39 

Karen L. Kenney, Ph.D., Marriage, Family Therapist, Personal Development 

Center Associates, and Member, San Fernando Valley Patriots ..................... 28 

Kevin S. Kookogey, President and Founder, Linchpins of Liberty: An American Leadership Development Enterprise .......................................................... 7 

Susan Martinek, President, Coalition for Life of Iowa ......................................... 34 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS

dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS
(1) 

HEARING WITH ORGANIZATIONS TARGETED 

BY INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE FOR 

THEIR PERSONAL BELIEFS 

TUESDAY, JUNE 4, 2013 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:04 a.m., in Room 

1100, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Dave Camp [Chairman of the Committee] presiding. 

[The advisory announcing the hearing follows:] 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS
2 

ADVISORY 

FROM THE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: (202) 225–3625 

Tuesday, May 28, 2013 

No. FC–8 

Ways and Means to Hold Hearing with 

Organizations Targeted by Internal Revenue 

Service for Their Personal Beliefs 

Congressman Dave Camp (R–MI), Chairman of the Committee on Ways and 

Means, today announced that the Committee will hold a hearing featuring organizations targeted by the Internal Revenue Service (‘‘IRS’’) based on their personal beliefs. The hearing will take place on Tuesday, June 4, 2013, in Room 1100 

of the Longworth House Office Building, beginning at 10:00 a.m. 

In view of the limited time available to hear witnesses, oral testimony at this 

hearing will be from invited witnesses only. However, any individual or organization 

not scheduled for an oral appearance may submit a written statement for consideration by the Committee and for inclusion in the printed record of the hearing. 

BACKGROUND: 

The Committee on Ways and Means has led a 2-year investigation into whether 

the IRS treated certain applicants for tax-exempt status differently on the basis of 

their personal beliefs. The agency now admits to the practice, and the Committee 

is continuing its work to determine how the practice was established and why it was 

allowed to continue. 

In announcing the hearing, Chairman Camp said, ‘‘While we now know that 

the IRS began targeting individuals based on their personal beliefs 3 years 

ago, we still need to know who began this targeting and why, and we need 

to understand how individuals were affected by the IRS’ abuse. This hearing will provide a voice to those Americans who wound up under the IRS’ 

political microscope on the basis of their beliefs.’’ 

FOCUS OF THE HEARING: 

The hearing will focus on organizations that were targeted as part of the Internal 

Revenue Service’s practice of discriminating against applicants for tax-exempt status based on their personal beliefs. 

DETAILS FOR SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN COMMENTS: 

Please Note: Any person(s) and/or organization(s) wishing to submit written comments for the hearing record must follow the appropriate link on the hearing page 

of the Committee website and complete the informational forms. From the Committee homepage, http://waysandmeans.house.gov, select ‘‘Hearings.’’ Select the hearing for which you would like to submit, and click on the link entitled, ‘‘Click here 

to provide a submission for the record.’’ Once you have followed the online instructions, submit all requested information. ATTACH your submission as a Word document, in compliance with the formatting requirements listed below, by the close 

of business on Tuesday, June 18, 2013. Finally, please note that due to the 

change in House mail policy, the U.S. Capitol Police will refuse sealed-package deliveries to all House Office Buildings. For questions, or if you encounter technical 

problems, please call (202) 225–3625 or (202) 225–5522. 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS
3 

FORMATTING REQUIREMENTS: 

The Committee relies on electronic submissions for printing the official hearing record. As always, submissions will be included in the record according to the discretion of the Committee. 

The Committee will not alter the content of your submission, but we reserve the right to format 

it according to our guidelines. Any submission provided to the Committee by a witness, any supplementary materials submitted for the printed record, and any written comments in response 

to a request for written comments must conform to the guidelines listed below. Any submission 

or supplementary item not in compliance with these guidelines will not be printed, but will be 

maintained in the Committee files for review and use by the Committee. 

1. All submissions and supplementary materials must be provided in Word format and MUST 

NOT exceed a total of 10 pages, including attachments. Witnesses and submitters are advised 

that the Committee relies on electronic submissions for printing the official hearing record. 

2. Copies of whole documents submitted as exhibit material will not be accepted for printing. 

Instead, exhibit material should be referenced and quoted or paraphrased. All exhibit material 

not meeting these specifications will be maintained in the Committee files for review and use 

by the Committee. 

3. All submissions must include a list of all clients, persons and/or organizations on whose 

behalf the witness appears. A supplemental sheet must accompany each submission listing the 

name, company, address, telephone, and fax numbers of each witness. 

The Committee seeks to make its facilities accessible to persons with disabilities. 

If you are in need of special accommodations, please call 202–225–1721 or 202–226– 

3411 TDD/TTY in advance of the event (four business days notice is requested). 

Questions with regard to special accommodation needs in general (including availability of Committee materials in alternative formats) may be directed to the Committee as noted above. 

Note: All Committee advisories and news releases are available on the World 

Wide Web at: http://www.waysandmeans.house.gov

f 

/. 

Chairman CAMP. Good morning. 

The hearing will come to order. We will give the media a chance 

to leave. 

Good morning. Welcome. Thank you all for being with us today. 

Despite nearly 2 years of denials, last month the IRS finally admitted the truth. Three years ago, the agency began systematically 

targeting individuals based on their political beliefs. 

However, what the agency has yet to admit, and what we still 

need to find out, is just how widespread this activity was, who ordered it, and why it began in the first place. Now let’s consider 

what we do know. In March of 2010, the IRS put together a target 

list that ensnared conservative groups and individuals based solely 

on their political beliefs. 

In May of 2011, the IRS started sending letters threatening donors to conservative-leaning nonprofits that they could be liable for 

gift taxes. 

In June of 2011, the Ways and Means Committee initiated an investigation into those letters and highlighted concerns that individual taxpayers might be targeted for their political beliefs. 

In June of 2011, the senior leadership in the Washington, D.C. 

office of the IRS also became aware that the IRS workers had been 

using lists to target groups with names like ‘‘liberty,’’ ‘‘Tea Party,’’ 

‘‘patriots,’’ ‘‘9/12,’’ or ‘‘make America a better place to live.’’ 

In March of 2012, the Huffington Post published the confidential 

2008 donor list of the National Organization for Marriage, a conservative tax-exempt organization. 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS
4 

In July of 2012, the Administration through the Treasury Department was informed by the Treasury Inspector General of a 

TIGTA audit examining the targeting of groups by the IRS. 

In May of 2013, the public and Congress were finally told that 

this practice had occurred, but only after a scathing report by the 

Treasury Inspector General that resulted in senior IRS officials 

planting a question about the targeting activity before the report’s 

release. 

And just this weekend, the Wall Street Journal reported that the 

IRS gift tax letters that launched this Committee’s initial investigation was, in fact, the result of a conservative organization and 

its donors being targeted for their political beliefs. 

Those are the facts we know. 

We also know that Americans were affected by the culture of political intimidation and discrimination that was cultivated by this 

targeting. At its core, this investigation is about how and why the 

IRS was empowered and allowed to use a broken Tax Code to 

abuse individuals based on their beliefs, and seemingly only based 

on their beliefs. 

And who are these Americans? While their life stories are different, what they all share in common is that they are Americans 

who did what we ask people to do every day: Add their voice to the 

dialogue that defines our country. And for pursuing that passion, 

for simply exercising their First Amendment rights, their freedoms 

of association, expression, and religion, the IRS singled them out. 

Today’s witnesses will help this Committee and the American 

people better understand just how far off track the IRS has gone. 

Their testimony will show that the IRS’ practice of treating certain 

Americans differently on the basis of their beliefs was not limited 

to the discriminatory conduct revealed by the Treasury Inspector 

General for Tax Administration’s report, which was released May 

14th of this year. Victims include Tea Party and non-Tea Party 

groups, 501(c)(3) social welfare organizations and 501(c)(3) charitable organizations, including religious organizations. All the witnesses received onerous and intrusive questionnaires from the IRS 

agents across the country. Some even had their confidential information leaked by the IRS to the media, which can have an impact 

of chilling free speech. Information requests to some included questions that were not only irrelevant but also intimidating, not to 

mention a violation of privacy. Those requests included asking for 

the following: Copies of all activity on Facebook or Twitter; resumes of past or present employees; whether past or present employees or a member of their family plans to run for office in the 

future; a list of past or present board members or members of their 

family that volunteer at a tax-exempt organization; information on 

their interaction with the media; details regarding the group’s relationship with the private taxpayer; and a list of donors. 

The invited witnesses are but a small sample of Americans who 

have been treated differently and discriminated against by their 

government because of their individual, deeply-held beliefs. There 

are many, many more. 

And, again, I want to thank personally the witnesses for being 

here with us today, for the time you have taken to travel here, and 

for sharing your stories and experiences. 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS
5 

While we might not know why this happened, please be assured 

that learning firsthand from you about how the IRS used the Tax 

Code to intimidate and harass you will help us take the steps necessary to make sure it never happens again. And I will now recognize Ranking Member Levin for an opening statement. 

Mr. LEVIN. Thank you very much. 

At our first hearing and every day since, each of us on a bipartisan basis have condemned the actions within the IRS Exempt Organization Division and condemn the actions by the IRS leadership 

who failed to accurately and adequately inform Congress after they 

had all of the facts of what had occurred between 2010 and 2012. 

We have all said that the singling out by name was wrong. The 

President said it was outrageous. The delays of over 13 months in 

processing applications were wrong. And the fact that the applications of some organizations have been pending for over 3 years is 

inexcusable. The inability to get clear guidance on how to measure 

political activity was wrong. And the burdensome questions and inquiries were totally inappropriate. The handling of these applications was gross mismanagement by the IRS Exempt Organization 

Division. 

That is why the day after the report was issued I called for Acting Commissioner Steve Miller and the Exempt Organization Division Director Lois Lerner to be replaced. Since our hearing, 

progress has been made to address the malfeasance that occurred 

within the IRS Exempt Organization Division and to assure that 

all the facts come to the surface and that all identified problems 

are corrected so that the confidence of the American people may be 

restored. 

Steve Miller resigned as the IRS Commissioner. The President 

appointed Daniel Werfel as the Acting IRS Commissioner. And Secretary Lew instructed him to immediately conduct a 30-day review 

and to implement the recommendations of the IG report. Lois 

Lerner, the Director of the Exempt Organization Division, was 

placed on administrative leave by Commissioner Werfel. Commissioner Werfel appointed David Fisher as the Chief Risk Officer. Mr. 

Fisher previously served as the Chief Administrative Officer and 

Chief Financial Officer at GAO. And yesterday, he appointed a new 

Deputy Commissioner and a Chief of Staff, both with significant 

managerial and administrative experience. 

To the individuals testifying before us, to each and all of you, to 

the organizations they represent, and all the others who are caught 

up in this malfeasance, you are owed an apology. We say to you 

that each of us is committed to doing our part to ensure this does 

not happen again. The IG’s report includes a number of key facts 

that we should keep in mind today. The IG determined that the applications of 298 organizations were set aside for review. One-third 

of the applications that were set aside, 96, contained the name 

‘‘Tea Party,’’ ‘‘9/12,’’ or ‘‘patriots,’’ while the remaining 202 applications did not. The IRS released a list of 176 advocacy organizations 

that have been approved for tax-exempt status through May 9. 

The news organization Tax Analyst did an analysis of the list released by the IRS. Its conclusion as to the approved applicants 

states, ‘‘These organizations are the following: 46 with Tea Party, 

patriots or 9/12 in their name; 76 other conservative organizations; 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS
6 

48 nonconservative organizations; and 6 organizations about which 

we can make no determination.’’ 

This is not a Democratic or Republican issue. It should not be. 

This issue is a direct reflection on highly inappropriate actions 

within the IRS Exempt Organization Division and totally incompetent management within and over that division. The TIGTA report highlights more problems than the singling out by name. The 

report found that IRS employees were screening applications that 

had no indications of significant political activities while closing 

cases that did have such indication. To qualify for tax-exempt status as social welfare organizations the Tax Code provides that an 

organization must be operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare. The regulations, however, state that an organization 

will qualify for tax-exempt status if operated primarily for social 

welfare purposes. Overall, the data indicate an emerging use of the 

‘‘social welfare’’ designation under 501(c)(4) to engage in political 

activity; 501(c)(4)s spent $92 million in the 2010 election. They 

spent $254 million in the 2012 election, the second largest category 

of organizations making political expenditures, equal to that of political parties. 

One recommendation—and I close with this—in the TIGTA report was that the IRS and the Department of Treasury include 

guidance on how to measure the primary activity of social welfare 

organizations be included for consideration in their priority guidance plan. We urge them to move with all deliberate speed to implement this recommendation. 

In closing, I want to again on behalf of all of us on the Democratic side, and I think on behalf of all of us, thank the witnesses 

for being here today and for discussing your experiences. Please be 

assured as you testify, please be assured that we take seriously our 

responsibility to ensure that Congress gets to the bottom of what 

happened, that those responsible are held accountable, and that 

safeguards are in place to ensure that this does not happen again. 

Thank you. 

Chairman CAMP. Thank you, Mr. Levin. 

Again, thank you all for being here today. And thank you for the 

courage of stepping into the spotlight and giving voice to the hundreds of individuals who are affected by this activity. The Committee has received each of your written statements, and they have 

been distributed. They will be made part of the formal hearing 

record. Each of you will be recognized for 5 minutes for your oral 

remarks. 

We have a lighting system here. The green light will go until you 

have 30 seconds remaining, then there will be a yellow light, then 

there will be a red light. After each of you give your oral statements, we will then move to questioning. 

And so the Members will each then have 5 minutes to question 

you, and they will be subject to the same lighting system. So if at 

times I am cutting them off, it is to make sure that every Member 

has an opportunity to have their 5 minutes. 

Our first witness is Kevin Kookogey. He is the President and 

Founder of Linchpins of Liberty, a nonprofit dedicated to educating 

high school and college students about the Nation’s founding docuVerDate Sep 11 2014 06:57 Jan 26, 2017 Jkt 021123 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 I:\WAYS\WAYSPS\21123\21123.XXX 21123

dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS
7 

ments. He is the father of six children and comes to us today from 

Franklin, Tennessee. 

Mr. Kookogey, you are now recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF KEVIN S. KOOKOGEY, PRESIDENT AND 

FOUNDER, LINCHPINS OF LIBERTY: AN AMERICAN LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT ENTERPRISE 

Mr. KOOKOGEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman—— 

Chairman CAMP. Touch the microphone button, please. 

Mr. KOOKOGEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to the 

honorable Members of this Committee. 

My name is Kevin Kookogey, and I am President and Founder 

of Linchpins of Liberty, which is an American leadership development enterprise. Our motto is to challenge the imagination of the 

rising generation. And we do this by mentoring high school and college students in conservative political philosophy. We aim to mentor high school and college students by teaching them about the 

great books and about the foundations of America’s moral and constitutional order. 

Linchpins of Liberty is one of those little platoons described by 

Alexis de Tocqueville, a local institution intended to act as a check 

on the power of the State to moderate the despotism of the majority and to give people a taste for freedom and the skills to be free. 

We are committed to a literary education and moral convictions 

that will allow citizens to maintain civil order. We aim to develop 

the moral imagination through the teaching of history. And we believe that God is the measure of all things and that the soul is the 

essence of humanity. 

Linchpin students learn how the Greeks were unable to maintain 

freedom because of their pursuit of private gain at public expense 

and their squandering of resources on extravagance. From Cicero, 

we learn the necessity of the rule of law, and we discover that true 

law is right reason in agreement with nature, that virtue must not 

yield to power. 

Linchpins of Liberty is also inspired by Augustine, that great 

fourth century philosopher of freedom, who wrote that only in obedience to God do we find perfect liberty. We teach our students 

from George Washington’s farewell address, where we discover that 

religion and morality are indispensable supports for political prosperity. From Montesquieu, we learn that positive law must conform 

to natural law, and that a republic can only be sustained by the 

virtue of its citizens. 

Linchpins of Liberty recognizes that the state is God ordained, 

necessary to protect against foreign enemies, and that there can be 

no freedom without the law. But there are limits to the authority 

of the State. The government cannot be a law unto itself, and when 

the State usurps its legitimate authority by interfering in the 

realms of speech, religion, conscience, family, association, and 

ideas, we have a duty as human beings to ourselves and our posterity to oppose and to protest the State’s trespassing its limits. 

In order to raise money, I filed an application with the IRS in 

January of 2011 seeking to obtain 501(c)(3) status as an educational organization. As of today, I have been waiting for 29 

months without status. In the interim, I lost a $30,000 launch 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS
8 

grant from a reputable nonprofit whose Executive Director advised 

me that he had never seen such treatment of a 501(c)(3) applicant 

in his 25 years of making grants. 

I also lost and continue to lose multiple thousands of my own 

money, and I had to cease any further official activity for fear the 

IRS would target me for further harassment. For 21⁄2 years the IRS 

has unlawfully delayed and obstructed my application for determination of tax-exempt status by using unconstitutional criteria. 

The types of questions asked by the IRS included asking me to 

identify the political affiliation of my mentors and that I advise the 

IRS of my political position on virtually every issue of importance 

to me. For good measure, I was asked to identify those whom I 

train and that I inform the Federal Government in detail what I 

am teaching my students. 

Considering that the mission of my organization is devoted to 

mentoring young people, some of whom are minors, can you imagine the reaction of the students’ parents were I to turn over the 

names of their children to the IRS? And to what end? Is it not conceivable that I would be sued? Would the IRS threaten to audit the 

parents of those students? Yet my failure to comply with this stunning inquiry would result in the denial of my application or subject 

me to perjury. 

Moreover, contrary to statements of Lois Lerner, the targeting of 

Linchpins was not merely the act of a few agents in Cincinnati. On 

December 31, 2011, after numerous and repeated calls to the IRS 

which went unreturned, I finally reached agent Ron Bell in Cincinnati. When I inquired of him as to why my application was taking so long, he said, ‘‘We have been waiting on guidance from our 

superiors as to your organization and similar organizations. We 

have now received that guidance, and you will receive your answer 

on a first-in, first-out basis.’’ 

Although Linchpins of Liberty is a 501(c)(3) and not a (c)(4), like 

many of the organizations here today, we do share one common 

trait with them and that is our ideas. Linchpins of Liberty exists 

to defend the cause of ordered liberty. We reject the expansion of 

the State beyond its legitimate authority, and we jealously guard 

human liberty. 

I respectfully urge and appeal to this Committee today, which is 

a co-equal branch of the Federal Government, vested with authority and responsibility to check the power of the executive branch, 

I would ask that you act with courage and moral resolve for, in so 

doing, you will—the intent is that you will—sorry, I got my—my 

time was running there. 

Chairman CAMP. You may conclude. 

Mr. KOOKOGEY. Thank you. I would ask that you act with the 

moral resolve to check the power of the executive branch because 

in so doing you will protect, defend, and preserve human liberty for 

ourselves and for our posterity. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kookogey follows:] 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS
9 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21123A.001
10 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21123A.002
11 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21123A.003
12 

f 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21123A.004
13 

Chairman CAMP. Thank you very much, Mr. Kookogey. 

Our next witness is Dianne Belsom, the President of the Laurens 

County Tea Party in South Carolina. 

Ms. Belsom, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF DIANNE BELSOM, 

PRESIDENT, LAURENS COUNTY TEA PARTY 

Ms. BELSOM. Thank you. Thank you for having me today. My 

name is Dianne Belsom. I am the President of Laurens County Tea 

Party. Laurens County Tea Party is a social welfare organization 

that seeks to educate ourselves and our fellow citizens on various 

issues pertinent to living in a free country, and we also work to 

educate voters by vetting candidates and by holding candidate forums during election years. We typically meet once a month and 

hold an annual rally. We held our first Tax Day Tea Party Rally 

in April of 2009, and then formally organized and incorporated 

with the State of South Carolina in March of 2010. 

On July 22, 2010, we filed for 501(c)(4) status with the IRS and paid the application fee of $400. We received a letter on August 11, 

2010, stating that if more information was needed to process our 

application we would be contacted within approximately 90 days. 

After hearing nothing, I called the IRS in the summer of 2011, 

which was a year after I filed, and was told our case was still pending. But in the meantime, we were still responsible for filing tax 

returns, which we have done. 

On November 14th, 2011, we received a letter from the IRS stating that we may be required to file a Form 990–N an e-postcard. 

Nothing more was heard until September 6, 2012, when we received a communication from the IRS requesting extremely burdensome additional information, which includes the following: Provide 

a copy of our articles of incorporation, which we had sent with our 

initial application in 2010; information about all of our committees, 

including legislative, educational, and vetting, and how much time 

and resources are devoted to these activities. They sent about 20 

pages copied from our website and wanted confirmation that these, 

in fact, were from our website. Then they wanted samples from any 

other social media sites, including Facebook. They asked for detailed information about all meetings, rallies, and events, with 

dates and names of speakers, agendas, any associated materials, 

and if a guest speaker made remarks concerning upcoming elections, and whether our organization took a view on anything 

expressed, and how much time or resources are devoted to these 

activities. They wanted to know how much time or resources were 

devoted to vetting candidates. 

The IRS noted that our website had a lot of videos of candidates 

running for local office. They wanted to know what offices the candidates were running for, which was stated in the videos; a list of 

all candidates for these offices; and an explanation for those who 

didn’t participate; copies of any written materials, including invitations to the candidates, copies of any introductory statements made 

by us, and copies of all questions asked of the candidates, whether 

the interviews were edited, a list of which interviews were posted 

on our website, an explanation for any not posted, and the percentage of time and resources devoted to this. 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS
14 

As regards a candidate forum we held, more questions were 

asked, including the date and elective offices for which it was held, 

a list of candidates and explanations for those who didn’t participate, copies of opening remarks from us, who asked the questions, 

copies of all questions asked, copies of written materials, including 

invites to candidates and advertising, whether the videos posted 

were edited, and the percentage of time and resources devoted to 

this activity. Then they also asked for a list of expenses for the 

past 3 years, including any amounts expended in support of any 

candidate for Federal, State, or local public office, which I might 

add is zero. 

Since I was already aware that the IRS was targeting Tea Party 

groups, I immediately contacted the ACLJ, and they agreed to represent us at no charge. Nevertheless, in order to comply with this 

information request, it took hours of time, stress, and aggravation. 

By the end of December, we had filed the requested information 

with the IRS. Then, on January 31st, 2013, we received a request 

for more information which included, again, a request for the articles of incorporation, copies of emails sent out on issues we deal 

with, plus copies from our Facebook group. Through emails sent 

out to our group members, I provided quite a few of those. I provided copies of free and paid ads placed in papers, pictures submitted to local papers, press releases, and materials for distribution. We complied with these demands on March 5th, 2013. It is 

now June 4th, 2013, so nearly 3 years have passed and, to date, 

we have still heard nothing. 

I would like to note that our group is a small-time operation with 

very little money, and this represents a complete waste of time by 

the IRS in terms of any money they would collect if we were not 

tax-exempt. Furthermore, nearly 3 years in waiting for an answer 

is totally unacceptable. The IRS needs to be fully investigated and 

held accountable for its incompetence, harassment, and targeting of 

conservative groups. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Belsom follows:] 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS
15 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21123A.005
16 

f 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21123A.006
17 

Chairman CAMP. Thank you, Ms. Belsom. 

Our next witness is Dr. John Eastman, Chairman of National 

Organization for Marriage and a Professor at Chapman University 

School of Law. 

And, Dr. Eastman, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN C. EASTMAN, PH.D., HENRY SALVATORI 

PROFESSOR OF LAW AND COMMUNITY SERVICE, CHAPMAN 

UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW; CHAIRMAN, THE CLAREMONT 

INSTITUTE’S CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL JURISPRUDENCE; AND CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD, NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR MARRIAGE 

Mr. EASTMAN. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. And to all 

Members of the Committee, thank you for taking these issues so 

seriously. I am the Chairman of the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, a public interest law firm affiliated with the Claremont Institute, and I am also on the Board of Directors of the Act 

Right Legal Foundation, which serves as co-counsel for True the 

Vote. The Act Right Legal Foundation filed a lawsuit just last week 

on their slow-walking by the IRS and their 501(c)(4) status. 

But I am here today in my capacity as Chairman of the Board 

of the National Organization for Marriage. Because the egregious 

conduct taken against that organization, which had its 501(c)(4) 

status conferred back in 2008, kind of takes us to a different level. 

In March of 2012, the confidential portions of our 990 tax returns, including Schedule B, which is our list of major donors and 

their home addresses, appeared on the website of the Human 

Rights Campaign, our principal political opponent in the nationwide fight over traditional marriage. The copy of our tax returns 

and our list of donors that was posted there were redacted. Our 

computer forensic people were able to unlayer the redactions from 

that PDF file and discovered that the original document that was 

posted there had originated from within the IRS. It had internal 

IRS stamps that are placed on every document the IRS receives 

that are electronically filed with the IRS and placed on those documents by that computer system. We don’t have copies of the documents with those IRS stamps on them; those only exist within the 

IRS. And yet this was posted on the website of the Human Rights 

Campaign. 

You can imagine our shock and disgust over this. We jealously 

guard our donors, as almost any other nonprofit does, particularly 

on the issues that we deal with, which are so contentious that our 

donors, once they are identified, are harassed and intimidated and 

chilled away from supporting the cause that we advance. This is 

unacceptable conduct in our democracy. 

We immediately requested an investigation from the Treasury’s 

Inspector General for Tax Administration Office as well as the Department of Justice. The second request to the Department of Justice was filed because these are felonies that were committed 

against the National Organization for Marriage. It is a felony, punishable by a $5,000 fine and up to 5 years in Federal prison, for 

the illegal disclosure, the unauthorized disclosure of one’s confidential tax returns. 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS
18 

We are a nonprofit. But that part of our tax return is as confidential as your individual 1040 forms. The TIGTA initially investigated us to try to determine whether somebody from within our 

own ranks had disclosed our confidential tax returns. And when we 

pointed out we didn’t have a copy of the version of our tax returns 

that had that IRS stamp on it, that was the last we heard of the 

investigation. That was last summer of 2012. 

We then began filing a series of Freedom of Information Act requests with TIGTA and with the IRS to try to ascertain some of 

the information that had been discovered during any investigation 

that had been had there. We were stonewalled in those Freedom 

of Information Act requests. The IRS told us that any documents 

they had would have been under the Inspector General’s jurisdiction, so they couldn’t disclose them to us. When we pointed out we 

didn’t ask for what was over at TIGTA, we asked for what was in 

the files of the IRS, their second response to us was, ‘‘Well, we’ve 

already answered your request; we don’t answer things twice.’’ 

Most stunningly, on May 3rd of this year, in followup to a Privacy Act request, where we asked for the specific information that 

Federal law allows us to request when there has been an investigation into disclosure of our tax returns, the Inspector General’s Office told us that the identity of the source of this felony against us 

was itself protected tax return information that they could not disclose to us. I ask you to think about the irony of that. 

There are a couple of things it seems to me that this Committee 

could look at to help cure this problem. First, clarify that it is not 

the case that the prohibition against disclosure of our tax returns 

shields the culprit who committed that felony. 

Second, we have no ability to bring a criminal prosecution for 

these felonies on our own, and yet the Department of Justice has 

not done so. There is a civil penalty provision that is available, but 

we can only bring a suit against the United States for $1 thousand 

per the one disclosure, not the hundreds of thousands of disclosures 

that were done by the Human Rights Campaign when they posted 

this on their website. I would like to see a clarification of that provision that would hold the people, the individual IRS official as 

well as their colluders that are nongovernment employees, civilly 

liable to the taxpayers whose tax returns they illegally disclosed. 

And, finally, I think because the investigation has yielded nothing of importance to us, I would ask this Committee to consider 

subpoenaing the folks at the Human Rights Campaign. Find out 

who posted it on the website, find out who introduced the 

redactions and hid the IRS information. Find out who received it 

from the IRS. And, most importantly, find out who from the IRS 

disclosed this information. The head of the Human Rights Campaign had recently been named the National Cochair of the Obama 

Reelection Campaign. This just smells, and I hope this Committee 

gets to the bottom of it. Thank you for allowing me to testify. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Eastman follows:] 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS
19 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21123A.007
20 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21123A.008
21 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21123A.009
22 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21123A.010
23 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21123A.011
24 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21123A.012
25 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21123A.013
26 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21123A.014
27 

f 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21123A.015
28 

Chairman CAMP. Thank you, Dr. Eastman. 

Our next witness is Dr. Karen Kenney, member of the San Fernando Valley Patriots. Dr. Kenney is a licensed psychotherapist 

practicing in Southern California. And among her work, Dr. 

Kenney assists returning veterans who suffer from post-traumatic 

stress disorder. 

Dr. Kenney, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF KAREN L. KENNEY, PH.D., MARRIAGE, FAMILY 

THERAPIST, PERSONAL DEVELOPMENT CENTER ASSOCIATES, AND MEMBER, SAN FERNANDO VALLEY PATRIOTS 

Ms. KENNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

John Adams knew that facts are stubborn things. In this district, 

facts are hidden under the mantle of office. They get used as tools 

or weapons, but they wait for us. We must seek them with the 

lamp of truth and put them into words. 

But you and I speak different languages in this Republic. You 

speak the language of power, of pen, purse, and gavel. I speak 

American grassroots, the language of liberty, through providence, 

property, and civic virtue. 

We seldom speak together about the rule of law, unless it is ignored or violated. Now is such a time. 

I have a story that bridges the distance between my State of 

California and this Capitol. What I say here must be said here. Pilgrims brought to this continent a lamp of liberty, guided here by 

the pursuit of life within the words of Moses and Christ. They persevered for righteous freedom. We sit here in the shadows of Washington, Jefferson and Lincoln. We visit here memorials to those 

who fell in service to this country. They persevered for righteous 

power. The spirit of patriots living and dead grants me the right 

to be here. It is my duty as an American citizen to speak here 

today. 

In October 2010, the San Fernando Valley Patriots, a not-forprofit corporation in California, applied with the Internal Revenue 

Service for a 501(c)(4) status as a tax-exempt social welfare organization. We were then and remain a Tea Party group, affiliated with 

the national Tea Party Patriots. We heard nothing until February 

2012, when I received a packet from the IRS Exempt Organizations 

Office in Cincinnati, Ohio, which included a questionnaire with 35 

items divided into 80 sub-points of inquiry. A cover letter indicated 

that we had 20 days to comply without penalty, including penalties 

of perjury for failure to answer all questions with the facts that are 

true, correct, and complete. 

Generally, the questions were a demand that read like the chilling words from the 1950s: ‘‘Are you now or have you ever been . . . ?’’ 

The IRS sought documentation of our meetings, rallies, events, or 

candidate forums that included video and audio transcriptions, 

notes, copies of all handouts, the political parties of speakers, and 

an issues list. The IRS sought identifying information on employees, data on volunteers and members, plus Employer Identification 

Numbers on businesses with which we associate. These are our donors. They have names: Mike, the printer, who gave us a discount 

on handbills; Dee, the beauty consultant, who donated posters for 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS
29 

our tax day rallies; and Greg, the electrician, who made a stand for 

our 9/11 banner out of pipes and wires. 

The IRS sought EINs and details on our association with taxexempt organizations. These are our teachers. They have names: 

the Heritage Foundation, Freedom Works, and the National Center 

for Constitutional Studies, where we learn American history; the 

Tea Party Patriots, where we learn grassroots skills; and the West 

Valley Food Pantry, our charity. 

The IRS sought details of communications with our legislators. 

Even in Southern California, that is protected free speech. 

My personal favorite was question No. 33, which, in relation to 

protests, asked for a listing of our ‘‘committed violations of local ordinances, breaches of public order or arrests,’’ then requested details on how we conduct or promote illegal activities. 

I think the IRS needs to fix its labeling machine. We are the San 

Fernando Valley Patriots, not Occupy Oakland. I stopped the costly 

and exhausting IRS process in July 2012. We survive on my credit 

card and donations in our cake tin. Like patriots before us, we persevere. 

The voice of the Republic resides in our citizens, not in the 

tongue of government. More must grasp that self-evident truth. 

This dialogue is about the jackboot of tyranny upon the field of our 

founding documents. To whisper the letters I–R–S strikes a shrill 

note on Main Street, USA, but when this behemoth tramples upon 

America’s grassroots, few hear the snapping sounds. 

Now more people listen, but few who know the truth speak. This 

moment reflects a reality of governance in America. This time we 

came to you. In time, you will come home to us. This time we came 

for truth. In time, the lies will fall. 

Vox populi, vox dei, the voice of the people is the voice of God, 

is irresistible but different in America. Our voice belongs to the 

free individual, not to the collective mob. Our voice is best heard 

when power kneels, then whispers to liberty, ‘‘strength.’’ And when 

liberty stands under heaven and shouts to power, ‘‘freedom.’’ 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Kenney follows:] 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS
30 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21123A.016
31 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21123A.017
32 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21123A.018
33 

f 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21123A.019
34 

Chairman CAMP. Thank you, Dr. Kenney. 

Our next witness is Ms. Susan Martinek, President of the Coalition for Life of Iowa. Until her recent retirement, Ms. Martinek 

was Founder and Manager of Seams Easy, a clothing alteration 

company. 

Ms. Martinek, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF SUSAN MARTINEK, 

PRESIDENT, COALITION FOR LIFE OF IOWA 

Ms. MARTINEK. Good morning. I am Sue Martinek, President 

of Coalition for Life of Iowa, based in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. Coalition 

for Life of Iowa is a grassroots, low-budget, public charity founded 

in 2004 to provide prayer, education, and related activities about 

the sanctity of life from conception to natural death. Throughout 

our history, we have organized and sponsored educational forums 

and engaged in peaceful, prayer activities. 

In 2008, we sought 501(c)(3) tax-exempt recognition from the IRS 

by filing a complete IRS Form 1023 application. I speak today so 

that what happened to us, the IRS’ demonstrated harassment, improper questions, and intolerance toward our message, may not 

happen to others. The IRS’ questions centered on our educational 

and potential political activities, our prayer groups, and our signage. 

On April 27, 2009, IRS Agent Ms. Richards, out of the Cincinnati office, sent me a letter asking about our educational forums, 

whether we were trying to influence legislation or influence political campaigns. We had already answered ‘‘no’’ on the IRS Form 

1023 application. I responded May 14th, answering all her questions fully. In the subsequent weeks, IRS Agent Richards contacted 

me by telephone a few times, asking more questions about our activities. Some questions I asked her she was unable to answer and 

would put me on hold and check with her superior or superiors. 

In June of 2009, Ms. Richards told me verbally that we needed 

to send in a letter with the entire board’s signatures stating that, 

under penalty of perjury, we would not picket, protest, or organize 

groups to picket and protest outside of Planned Parenthood. Upon 

receiving such a letter, she indicated that the IRS would allow our 

application to go through. 

So we sent a followup letter to the IRS specifically requesting 

where in Form 1023 or elsewhere it stated that we could not protest at Planned Parenthood. The IRS never answered our question. 

Instead, the IRS continued questioning us. 

On June 22, 2009, IRS Agent Richards sent us additional written 

requests as follows: Please explain how all of your activities, including the prayer meetings held outside of Planned Parenthood, 

are considered educational, as defined under 501(c)(3). Organizations exempt under 501(c)(3) may present opinions with scientific 

or medical facts. Please explain in detail the activities at the 

prayer meetings. Also, please provide the percentage of time your 

organization spends on prayer groups as compared with the other 

activities of the organization. Please explain in detail the signs that 

are being held up outside of Planned Parenthood and explain how 

they are considered educational. 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS
35 

When we met at our next board meeting, we were all disappointed with the IRS’ requests. We had worked so hard to get 

the application correct. We had a local attorney skilled with this 

process helping us. We understood that we could hold up signs 

with educational information about abortion and the sanctity of life 

without the IRS questioning their validity. 

We never thought we would have to defend our prayer activities. 

As Christians, we knew we needed to pray for a better solution to 

unplanned pregnancy than abortion. Why not at the source? 

Personally, I wondered, who fights the IRS? What would the repercussions be? Would there even be a hope to win? Since we focused on educational forums and not picketing or protesting, some 

board members were willing to sign the requested letter. But others refused to sign a statement that unfairly restricted First 

Amendment rights. 

We had very little funds. One board member suggested we contact the Thomas More Society, a public interest law firm. They help 

the little guy—that was us—with legal problems. They took our 

case and found us an attorney that specializes in this area. 

Fortunately, with their help, and after we submitted a lengthy 

letter detailing the law and our constitutional rights, the IRS 

granted us tax-exempt status, just 1 week after our attorney, Sally 

Wagenmaker, sent in that letter to IRS Agent Richards. No more 

mention was made of any IRS-required board statement about protesting and picketing outside of Planned Parenthood. 

We were fortunate, but not all are. Our story has a happy ending. Donors can claim charitable tax deductions for their contributions. With their help, we can carry out our educational and religious activities to promote respect for human life, such as the 

March for Life and 40 Days for Life campaigns. Coalition for Life 

of Iowa seeks to save lives, help others, and improve our community. May our story of the IRS’ overreaching spur reform of its 

practices, better treatment of our charitable institutions, and continued protection of First Amendment right freedoms. Thank you 

for letting me tell our story. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Martinek follows:] 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS
36 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21123A.020
37 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21123A.021
38 

f 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21123A.022
39 

Chairman CAMP. Thank you, Ms. Martinek. 

Our final witness is Becky Gerritson, President of the Wetumpka 

Tea Party in Alabama. 

Ms. Gerritson, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF BECKY GERRITSON, 

PRESIDENT, WETUMPKA TEA PARTY 

Ms. GERRITSON. Good morning. Thank you for inviting me to 

be here today. I would like to begin with a brief statement. I know 

that you are primarily interested in hearing about the abuses of 

the Internal Revenue Service. But I believe it is critically important that you understand just not what these abuses were but 

what exactly the IRS was trying to stifle. 

In order to paint a clear picture, I need to explain how the 

Wetumpka Tea Party came into being. My husband and I had 

never been involved in politics before 2008. We have always been 

patriotic and deeply proud of our country. We have always felt that 

the United States is the greatest country in the world. In September 2008, when we had our first $700 billion bailout, 

we, along with millions of Americans, were very concerned. That 

bailout was confirmation that our government was out of control. 

But just a few months later, in January 2009, we learned that our 

government was going to spend another $787 billion. That money 

went to foreign nations, failing banks, and unproductive industries. 

We were worried, and we knew we had to do something to sound 

the alarm. We knew the government had gone far beyond its habitual deficit spending. The government was mortgaging America’s future. And we knew that Washington wasn’t going to stop by itself. 

In the spring of 2009, we learned that others were organizing 

Tea Party events around the Nation to educate and empower concerned citizens who believed their government was out of control. 

So we made our plans. My husband and I filled out a permit to 

meet at a local park in our small town. My daughter and I walked 

through neighborhoods handing out flyers for our April 15th event. 

When the day arrived, we were blown away by the large crowd. A 

few politicians came also, but they didn’t speak. We wanted to give 

ordinary citizens the chance to speak their concerns. 

Our event had no party affiliation. I could not tell you if the 

attendees were Republicans, Democrats or Independents. It didn’t 

matter. The only political notion expressed was one that we collectively felt, that our representative government had failed us. And 

that was the birth of the Wetumpka Tea Party. There are no dues, 

no price for membership. Our events are mostly educational. Whatever expenses are incurred are paid from donations—by donations 

and tee shirt sales. 

In Wetumpka, we are patriotic Americans. We peacefully assemble. We petition our government. We exercise the right to free 

speech. And we don’t understand why the government tried to stop 

us. I am not here as a serf or a vassal. I am not begging my lords 

for mercy. I am a born-free American woman, wife, mother, and citizen. And I am telling my government that you have forgotten your 

place. It is not your responsibility to look out for my well-being and 

to monitor my speech. It is not your right to assert an agenda. 

Your post—the posts that you occupy exist to preserve American 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS
40 

liberty. You have sworn to perform that duty, and you have faltered. The abuses I will discuss today occurred on your watch. And 

it is your responsibility to make sure it doesn’t happen again. 

Here are the facts of my case. We applied for a 501(c)(4) in Octo- ber 2010. Our $850 application fee was cashed 7 days later. We received a letter from Robert Choi dated November 2, 2010, stating 

that our application and our user fee payment had been received. 

It also stated that we should be expecting to hear from someone 

within 90 days. 

However, the IRS did not initiate any contact with us for another 

459 days. That was when I received a letter from the Cincinnati 

office, dated February 3rd, 2012. That letter stated that they could 

not process our application until we completed the enclosed questionnaire, which requested approximately 90 pieces of additional 

information about our organization. 

The questionnaire stated that if the additional information was 

not returned by February 24th, our case would be closed. The demands for information in the questionnaire shocked me, as someone who loves liberty and the First Amendment. I was asked to 

hand over my donor list, including the amounts that they gave and 

the dates on which they gave them. The 501(c)(4) organizations do 

not have to disclose donor information. I knew that. Why didn’t 

they? 

Among the demands that I found alarming and inappropriate were: They wanted me to identify all of my volunteers. They 

wanted to know if any of our donors or volunteers had run or 

would be running for office in the near future. Remember, this was 

the 2012 election cycle. They wanted us to identify the office they 

would be running for. They wanted us to provide detailed contents 

of all speeches ever given, the names of our speakers, and their credentials. They wanted copies of written communications and contents of all other forms of communications to any legislative body, 

including my own Representative. 

I was very uncomfortable with these questions, as you can imagine, and my husband and I discussed forfeiting our application. 

However, within days of reading through these questions, we knew 

we were being targeted because fellow Tea Party organizers across 

this Nation were getting the same types of letters and questionnaires. That was when we decided to seek legal counsel. 

On March 6th, 2012, we retained the counsel of the American 

Center for Law and Justice, and they represented us in this matter. Two weeks later, I received a letter from Lois Lerner, dated 

March 16th, 2012, asking that I provide the previously requested 

information. Four months later, we received a letter, dated July 9, 

2012, stating that we had been approved to receive our tax exemption. This was 635 days after we applied. 

In conclusion, the Wetumpka Tea Party filled out a complete application. Our organization fell within the boundaries of receiving 

a 501(c)(4) status, yet our application was singled out solely because we had ‘‘Tea Party’’ in our name. Government agents made 

invasive and excessive demands for information they were not entitled to. 

Congressman Camp and Members of this Committee, this was 

not an accident. This was a willful act of intimidation to discourage 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS
41 

a point of view. What the government did to our little group in 

Wetumpka, Alabama, is un-American. It wasn’t a matter of firing 

or arresting individuals. The individuals who sought to intimidate 

us were acting as they thought they should in a government culture that has little respect for its citizens. Many of the agents and 

agencies of the Federal Government do not understand that they 

are servants of the people. They think they are our masters, and 

they are mistaken. 

I am not interested in scoring political points. I want to protect 

and preserve the America that I grew up in, the America that people crossed oceans and risked their lives to become a part of. And 

I am terrified it is slipping away. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Gerritson follows:] 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS
42 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21123A.023
43 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21123A.024
44 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21123A.025
45 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21123A.026
46 

f 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21123A.027
47 

Chairman CAMP. Thank you very much. Thank you, Ms. Gerritson. 

Thank you all for your testimony. We will now move to the 

question-and-answer period of the hearing. And I will begin. 

On May 17th, we heard from the Inspector General that the IRS 

had targeted certain Americans on the basis of their personal 

beliefs, that they were subject to extraordinary delays and inappropriate, at best, and unlawful, at worst, questions. I know, for 

example, Mr. Kookogey, and Ms. Kenney, you were both asked to 

provide a list of all the issues that are important to your organization and to indicate your position on each issue. 

Ms. Martinek, you were asked about prayer meetings, including 

how they are considered educational as defined under 501(c)(3), 

and you were asked to explain in detail the activities at these 

prayer meetings, and the percentage of time your organization 

spends on prayer meetings. 

I would like to ask the panel to elaborate. Are the Inspector General’s report findings consistent with your experience of targeting, 

delay, and intimidation? 

Mr. Kookogey, I will start with you. 

Mr. KOOKOGEY. Yes, I would say that the Inspector General’s 

report findings are consistent. I don’t think the Inspector General’s 

report, however, is deep enough yet. I think we have more evidence 

among us, and not only among this panel but among other parties 

and organizations, that goes much deeper. I think the IG has just 

scratched the surface. 

Chairman CAMP. All right. 

Ms. Belsom. 

Ms. BELSOM. I didn’t actually read the Inspector General’s report. So what exactly was your question? 

Chairman CAMP. Well, just if those things I mentioned, were 

those consistent with your experience? 

Ms. BELSOM. You know, I think that this certainly seemed like 

a gross overreach of the IRS. 

Chairman CAMP. All right. Thank you. 

Dr. Eastman. 

Mr. EASTMAN. You know, our organization doesn’t have those 

particular problems. But as our story has become more public, the 

number of communications I have received seeking legal counsel 

have raised a concern that a lot of Americans have expressed, is 

this limited to the IRS? The stories about people having OSHA and 

ATF and the FBI starting investigations of their organizations just 

have American citizens scared to death of what their government 

is capable of doing once they have crossed the threshold that they 

have crossed here. 

It is not just the IRS. This is the beginning of a thread on a 

sweater that is just unraveling. And Americans are down right 

afraid of what is going on. We have to restore the credibility of government as a servant of the people rather than our master, as my 

colleague said. The number of stories that I am hearing that indicate those greater concerns I think is deeply troubling. 

Chairman CAMP. All right. 

Dr. Kenney. 

Ms. KENNEY. In answer to your question, definitely, yes. 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS
48 

Chairman CAMP. All right. 

Ms. Martinek. 

Ms. MARTINEK. And yes also. They had asked us to please explain in detail the activities at our prayer meetings, also please 

provide the percentage of time your organization spends on prayer 

groups as compared with the other activities in our organization. 

Ms. GERRITSON. I would agree with the IG report. But I was 

disturbed, on page 20, the IRS listed seven questions that they 

deemed inappropriate. However, many of the questions that I was 

asked and others were asked, like the contents of our prayers, 

some of the organizations that we have been involved with, they 

even asked questions about family members. And the questions I 

mentioned about running for office, they don’t deem those as inappropriate. So I think we need to go back and look at those questions because most of them were inappropriate. 

Chairman CAMP. And, obviously, getting a letter from a Federal 

agency asking for those detailed—those detailed pieces of information about prayer meetings and these issues about what your family members are doing had to be disturbing. I read some of these 

questions and, obviously, I came to the conclusion that the IRS felt 

there was a right and wrong position on those issues. There was 

a right and wrong activity regarding prayer meetings, for example. 

What was your impression when you received those questions? 

And I will start with you, Ms. Gerritson. 

Ms. GERRITSON. Well, like I said, when I received those questions, I did—I felt defensive, for one thing, because I felt like that 

wasn’t any of their business. I wasn’t going to identify my volunteers. I was fearful for them. If their name was going to the IRS, 

I know they would be scared. The questions were chilling, I was 

shocked that I was being asked those questions. 

Chairman CAMP. All right. 

Ms. Martinek. 

Ms. MARTINEK. The most disturbing thing for us was having to 

agree that we would not protest or picket at Planned Parenthood. 

And since there was no similar request in the application, really 

we had no idea what they were even trying to control. If we went 

there in prayer, would that be considered picketing, protesting? It 

was very troubling. 

Chairman CAMP. All right. 

Dr. Kenney. 

Ms. KENNEY. I immediately reached my target heart rate when 

I opened the envelope. And I had anxiety. And I felt betrayed, absolutely betrayed. 

Chairman CAMP. All right. 

Dr. Eastman. 

Mr. EASTMAN. When our donors were disclosed, a number of 

them called us expressing concern about that. The effort seems to 

have been designed to subject our donors to abuse, to intimidation, 

to hold them accountable for donating in support of the cause of 

traditional marriage, to boycott their businesses, to target their 

families and, more significantly for our purposes, to chill them from 

donating again so we can keep up the political fight that we are 

in the middle of. There is an unbelievable chilling effect on what 

happened to us. 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS
49 

Chairman CAMP. Ms. Belsom. 

Ms. BELSOM. I think that for our organization the questions 

weren’t quite as intrusive as some of the other groups, but I was 

just overwhelmed by the sheer level of minute detail that was 

being requested. And to try to go back and track down this kind 

of stuff, it was, you know, very difficult. It was a very stressful 

thing, having to go through this. 

And, you know, at this point, too, now that I think about it, I 

was looking back through—I mean, this is the paperwork, my files. 

And when I looked back through all this information that has been 

sent into the IRS—and I have heard about these 157 visits, I believe it was, between the head of the IRS and President Obama— 

and I am very concerned. It just makes me very nervous thinking 

about, was my group being discussed, was our political activities 

being discussed, and are we somehow targeted for this? And it is 

very chilling. 

Chairman CAMP. All right. 

Mr. Kookogey. 

Mr. KOOKOGEY. Most disturbing to Linchpins of Liberty—keep 

in mind that we work with students, some of them minors, 7thgraders. That the IRS would ask to know the identity of those students is unbelievably, unconscionably chilling. 

Chairman CAMP. At the same hearing that I mentioned earlier 

on May 17th, then-Acting Commissioner Steve Miller summed up 

the IRS’ action as ‘‘horrible customer service.’’ Now, I know that I 

certainly take a different view of that, as I am sure many Members 

of this Committee do. And his quote was, ‘‘I will admit that. We 

did. We did horrible customer service. Whether it was politically 

motivated or not is a different question.’’ 

I would say, Dr. Eastman, if you had a bank and you disclosed 

confidential customer information, would you call that horrible customer service or would you call that something else? 

Mr. EASTMAN. I would call it a felony, as the Federal law calls 

this a felony. 

Chairman CAMP. All right. 

Mr. EASTMAN. And I would hold the people that committed 

those felonies accountable. I would bring indictments. I would open 

up civil liability for them for the taxpayers who were affected. The 

damages to our donor base are incalculable. And I would prosecute 

those people responsible. 

Chairman CAMP. All right. Thank you. 

Mr. Levin is recognized. 

Mr. LEVIN. Well, thank you very much. 

Let me just say a few things in response to your testimony. I do 

think it is our obligation to get the facts and not deal in conjecture. 

Indeed, I think the more we deal with conjecture, the less likely we 

are to get the facts. 

So let me just say to you, Ms. Martinek, I think we very much 

disagree about the work of Planned Parenthood; that is my guess. 

But I must say that the question about whether you were picketing 

or protesting before a Planned Parenthood is totally worse than inappropriate. You should not have been asked that. And as personnel of the IRS are inquired of, I would think that may be looked 

in to. 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS
50 

Mr. Eastman, let me just say to you, this issue was raised at the 

hearing with the Inspector General, and Mr. Miller indicated, in response to a question from you, Mr. Chairman, about the donor list, 

he said, ‘‘I believe we made a referral to the Inspector General.’’ 

He was later asked about that, and he said, ‘‘Those two situations, we went to TIGTA, and I think Mr. George can speak to 

what they found—what they found. We made the referrals, and I 

believe what they found was that those disclosures were inadvertent and that there had been discipline in one of those cases for 

somebody not following procedures. But I will—I will obviously let 

Mr. George speak to that.’’ That was his testimony. 

And then our Chairman asked Mr. George about that, and it 

would appear from his testimony that it was being investigated by 

the Inspector General. And that is all we know about it at this 

point, whether it continues to be investigated by the Inspector General is unknown. 

So let me finish. I just want to emphasize, I said in my opening 

statement that we also need to look at the larger issue of 

501(c)(4)s, of the statutory language in the regulation and how, in 

fact, it is now being utilized. 

But I want to finish by just reading the last part of my opening 

statement. And we said this to each one of you and to the American public: ‘‘Please be assured that we take seriously our responsibility to ensure that Congress gets to the bottom of what happened, 

that those responsible are held accountable, and that safeguards 

are in place to ensure that this does not happen again.’’ 

We will do that. We surely on the Democratic side will do that. 

I trust on a bipartisan basis we will work together to do that. 

Thank you. 

Chairman CAMP. Thank you. 

Mr. Johnson is recognized. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for holding 

this important hearing. The American people want, need, and deserve to know the truth, and it is our responsibility to demand it 

and hold those responsible fully accountable. 

I also want to thank the witnesses for sharing your stories. 

Mr. Chairman, I was particularly struck by the testimony by several of the Tea Party witnesses. 

As you know, Mr. Chairman, back in my district it appears the 

Allen Area Patriots, who advocate the fiscal responsibility, the rule 

of law, and limited government, have also been a target of the IRS. 

Back in July 2010, the group applied for 501(c)(4) status. As of 

today, that group has yet to receive a final response. That is absurd. It has been nearly 3 years. 

In February 2012, the IRS sent the Allen Area Patriots a set of 

19 questions, including onerous and irrelevant ones relating to the 

employment of the group’s key officials. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit for the record the CBS 

DFW news story entitled, ‘‘Two DFW Conservative Groups Targeted 

by the IRS.’’ And let me just say what it says here. The IRS wanted 

a list of all their volunteers, everything they did. They wanted an 

accounting of every dollar donated and what it was spent on. It 

wanted records of every speaker the group had ever hosted and flyers they might have handed out. 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS
51 

May I submit that for the record? 

Chairman CAMP. Without objection. 

[The submission of The Honorable Sam Johnson follows:] 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS
52 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21123A.028
53 

f 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21123A.029
54 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you. 

The pattern of intimidation toward certain Americans is, quite 

frankly, in my view, un-American. The bottom line is the IRS has 

been used as a political weapon. 

You know, Ms. Kenney, I understand you work with veterans returning from combat with post-traumatic stress disorder. And, as 

a veteran, I would like to start off by saying thank you for doing 

that. 

Ms. Kenney, can you describe your work? 

Ms. KENNEY. I work with veterans who have been deployed to 

Iraq and Iran—rather, Iraq mostly, the desert communities—and 

their families. The toll that deployment takes on the families is extraordinary. 

I work with a therapy dog. I am going to cry. I see people that 

are untouched. No one goes up and hugs a soldier unless they are 

family. But I have this one guy I see, and he goes, ‘‘Where is my 

dog?’’ He picks the dog up, and the entire session he pets my dog, 

Little Lady. 

They are on the front lines, and everyone on this panel has their 

back. And I hope you do, too. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, ma’am. Well, as you know, I was in the 

military, and I understand that. Thank you for doing that. 

Considering the selfless work you do, did you ever think you 

would have to deal with pages and pages and pages of intruding 

questions from the IRS? 

And when you come home from a day of helping our troops who 

protect us every minute of every day, I bet the very last thing you 

want to do is deal with onerous questionnaires from the IRS. Can 

you talk about the burden of the IRS questions and how many 

there were? 

Ms. KENNEY. The burden of the questions on me, personally, 

was extraordinary. I think I could have bought stock in Kinkos 

because there were almost 200 pages of documentations, leaflets, 

and agendas. I have one here. They asked if we had candidates of 

pretty much only a certain party. 

This is a list of candidates that I invited for one of our candidate 

forums, both Democrats and Republicans, back and forth. I heard 

nothing from any of the Democratic candidates, not even an RSVP 

regret. And some of the Republicans, if they couldn’t come, they 

sent their presentation, and so did the Libertarians. 

Our group is primarily educational. We have operated as a 

501(c)(4). We have done this to get word out on the Constitution, 

to get people to be informed about how to vote, where to go to vote. 

If you go on our website, you will see Democrat, Republican, and 

Libertarian groups in Los Angeles County listed. 

Mr. JOHNSON. How much time did the IRS give you to respond 

to those letters? 

Ms. KENNEY. Twenty days. That was after the first interrogatory. There were three questionnaires that were sent. 

Mr. JOHNSON. It probably made it impossible for you to answer 

those questions, too. 

I thank you again for being here, and thank you for the great 

work you do to help our veterans. I appreciate you standing up for 

them as they stand up for us. 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS
55 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman CAMP. Thank you. 

Mr. Rangel. 

Mr. RANGEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And let me thank each and every one of you for making the effort 

to come here to point out where our government has let us down 

and in helping us to understand the problems encountered by those 

people who were directly and adversely affected so that we can better do our job. 

And I don’t want to forget, Ms. Kenney—and I hope everyone 

that is listening—whatever you can do for the veterans, whatever 

anyone can do to help those people who put their lives at stake and 

are coming home to joblessness and homelessness, I want to commend you, as did my colleague, Congressman Johnson, for what 

you do and hope that it is encouragement for—everybody can do 

something. 

Now, with the IRS, most of us know that this is an experience. 

A telephone call from the IRS, somehow historically, it is a very, 

very uncomfortable feeling. And I hope all of you would agree that 

the 90,000 people that work for the Internal Revenue Service are 

dedicated, hardworking civil servants. 

But we have found a cancer someplace in Cincinnati, and we 

have to find out what caused this so that no Americans would be 

subject to the type of bias and discrimination that some of you and 

many others who are not here have suffered. And we have to make 

certain that it doesn’t happen again, but, even more important, to 

try to find out just how many people were contaminated by the 

presence of those people that have done this to our country. 

Dr. Eastman, I think you would agree that we have to find criminal intent. We don’t know how anyone could do something like this 

and just think it was in the ordinary course of business. But I, as 

a former Federal prosecutor, and you, as a doctor and a lawyer and 

a former clerk to a Member of the United States Supreme Court, 

know that—I have been trying to get this same information that 

you spoke of in your testimony, and they said this is all being investigated and, you know, could lead to a grand jury inquiry. And 

I think that if you and I kept in touch with each other, I would 

be satisfied with you following whether or not our government is 

actually pursuing this investigation in the manner that you as an 

American can be proud that this branch of government intends to 

do the job that is expected of us. 

And so I don’t want these hearings to just pass and indict an Administration but, more importantly, to indict these civil servants 

that work every day for the taxpayers. 

I want to close, Dr. Eastman, by saying that when it comes to 

political support, most people know I am a Democrat to the marrow 

of my bones, but what makes our country great is that everybody 

wants a better country and loves the country that we are in. And 

we need all of these views. Whether you came over with the Pilgrims or whether you came some other way against your will, we 

are here to improve the quality of life in our country and to be a 

beacon for democracy for the entire world. 

I don’t know whether our political system can afford to be using 

charitable organizations to get candidates elected. And I only ask 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS
56 

you this as a professor of constitutional law, Dr. Eastman, and because of the fact that people’s identity should be confidential if it 

concerns their activity. But if you are a Democrat, hey, put it out 

there. If you are a Republican, put it out there. If you are making 

contributions, do it and be proud of it. 

But it just sounds, Dr. Eastman, like an undercover thing, to 

take an organization that is supposed to be primarily for the public 

good and be giving political campaign funds to it. What is your 

view, Dr. Eastman, of that? 

Chairman CAMP. And, Dr. Eastman, you will have to respond 

briefly because time has expired. 

Mr. RANGEL. Yes. 

Mr. EASTMAN. If you wanted to get rid of all of the tax-exempt 

status and create a level playing field that way, that would be fine. 

But what is intolerable is to have one set of rules for one side of 

the political fight and another set of rules for the other. 

Mr. RANGEL. No, I agree with you on that. 

Mr. EASTMAN. And, quite frankly, Representative Rangel, what 

is happening to the National Organization for Marriage donors, the 

level of intimidation that is going on against them is starting to 

rival what went on—the Supreme Court shut down in NAACP v. 

Alabama. 

There is a reason some people want to have their activities confidential, and that is so they don’t get harassed and intimidated 

out of participating in the political process. And when it rises to 

the level of NAACP v. Alabama, I think it is important that we 

help protect that confidentiality that the law provides so that people are not chilled away from exercising their constitutional rights. 

Mr. RANGEL. I agree—— 

Chairman CAMP. Thank you. 

Mr. RANGEL [continuing]. Republicans and Democrats—— 

Chairman CAMP. Time has expired, Mr. Rangel. 

Mr. Brady is recognized. 

Mr. BRADY. Our first hearing revealed a number of significant 

abuses, or potential abuses, of power by the IRS, including targeting donors and organizations based on their political belief, leaking private taxpayer information to the media, to outside groups, 

perhaps to campaigns, concealing that program for almost 2 years, 

and then misleading Congress. Any thorough, deliberate investigation ought to begin by listening to the victims of those abuses of 

power, so thank you all for being here today. 

Ms. Martinek, a small-business owner in the Midwest, Ms. 

Gerritson, a housewife and concerned citizen of Alabama, you two 

are plenty tough, but how frightening is a government so powerful 

that it can target you, an average American citizen, for simply expressing your constitutional views and wanting to be engaged in 

this Republic? How frightening is that power? 

Ms. MARTINEK. Well, for me, it was very frightening. I didn’t 

think we had a hope to even try to stand up to it. Personally, I 

thought we would just have to sign the letter and get our 501(c)(3). 

If we didn’t have the 501(c)(3), you know, some of our donors 

maybe wouldn’t contribute to us. So it was power the IRS had over 

us and over the success of our group by not granting this. 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS
57 

Fortunately, some of our board members were strong about it, 

and they would not give up their First Amendment rights. And 

even though we are not about protesting—that is not what we are 

even about. We are about education. We are about praying for an 

end to abortion. Some of our members, when they are praying at 

Planned Parenthood, do like to take a side. But that is a very small 

percentage in our organization. Still, we didn’t want to give up the 

right that we had to be able to do that. 

Fortunately, we had some attorneys that helped us. But if we 

didn’t have the attorneys, I don’t know what would have happened. 

Mr. BRADY. Yeah. Thank you. 

Ms. Gerritson. 

Ms. GERRITSON. Well, I don’t know, it is very hard to put into 

words how scary it is when a huge government and a government 

agency can come after an individual or a small organization. 

I think what is the most alarming and what is the most scary 

is that when you allow the government to go so far and you don’t 

stop them, they go farther. It is just, pretty soon we are in tyranny. 

And it is hard to put into words, but it looks like that is—you 

know, but using these agencies as a weapon against citizens feels 

scary, and it feels like tyranny. 

Mr. BRADY. Yeah. That is exactly what these hearings are 

about. 

Mr. Eastman, the White House continues to claim that all this 

was done by a couple of rogue employees in Cincinnati. Do you believe the leaking of your personal taxpayer information was done 

or contained by a few rogue employees in Cincinnati? 

Mr. EASTMAN. No, I don’t, Representative Brady. 

And let me respond to Representative Levin’s comment about 

this as being inadvertent. It wasn’t inadvertent that somebody redacted the identifying information that this came from the IRS. 

Mr. BRADY. It was deliberate. 

Mr. EASTMAN. It wasn’t inadvertent that it was given to our 

political opponents. This wasn’t somebody dropped a piece of our 

tax return out on the sidewalk inadvertently. They deliberately 

provided our donor list to the very political opponents of ours who 

had been seeking that information for a long time. If that is inadvertent, the word no longer means anything. 

Mr. BRADY. Got it. 

Ms. Belsom, concerned citizen of South Carolina; Mr. Kookogey, 

in addition to being an attorney, you teach civics classes. Did either 

of you believe that this could happen in America? Did you ever 

imagine that the government could target you like this? 

Ms. BELSOM. That wasn’t something I was thinking about. You 

know, I thought we lived in a free republic. But, honestly, I feel 

that our country has turned a corner into tyranny, and I honestly 

have lost sleep over just being in fear of what our government 

might do next. 

Mr. KOOKOGEY. In my situation, actually, we teach about this 

very thing. The irony is that it is happening right under our noses. 

So it is a good lesson for my students, albeit a frightening one. 

Mr. BRADY. It is probably one you didn’t include in your lesson 

plan originally, being targeted by the IRS for your political beliefs. 

Mr. KOOKOGEY. We did not. 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS
58 

Mr. BRADY. We have a lot to do in this investigation. It is going 

to be thorough, it is going to be deliberate. It is very important we 

hear from you, so thank you all for being here today. 

Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman CAMP. Thank you. 

Mr. McDermott. 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Freedom of speech is no doubt one of our most important fundamental rights. It is unacceptable in every way for a government 

agency to unfairly scrutinize any organization because of their political affiliations. The IRS has unequivocally made a mistake here. 

I am sorry your organizations were singled out like this. And while 

I think it is a case of foolish account management and dangerously 

chosen shortcuts, I will not hesitate to say the IRS was wrong. 

But as I listen to this discussion, I would like to remind everyone 

what we are talking about here. None of your organizations were 

kept from organizing or silenced. We are talking about whether or 

not the American taxpayers will subsidize your work. We are talking about a tax break. If you didn’t come in and ask for this tax 

break, you would have never had a question asked of you. You 

could go out there and say anything you want in the world. 

And I get the feeling that many of you and my Republican colleagues just don’t believe—believe you should be free from political 

targeting, but that you should be free from any scrutiny at all. The 

purpose of a (c)(3) or (c)(4) tax exemption is to enable easier promotion of public good, not political work. 

It is the responsibility of the IRS to determine which groups are 

choosing the correct exempt status and which are trying to manipulate the system to avoid taxes and hide political organizations and 

campaign donors. Without oversight, a status meant for charities 

becomes a machine for political money laundering. 

If you think that is farfetched, you ought to speak to Speaker 

Gingrich. Speaker Gingrich in 1997 was fined $300,000 by the 

Ethics Committee of the House of Representatives for funneling 

money from the ALF, the Abraham Lincoln Opportunity Fund, into 

GOPAC, of which he was Chairman, to promote the takeover of the 

House and arouse Republican activists. Now, that is what happens 

when you don’t ask questions. 

Each of your groups is highly political. From opposing the President’s healthcare reform, to abortion restrictions, to gay marriage, 

you are all entrenched in some of the most controversial political 

issues in the country. And with your applications, you are asking 

the American public to pay for that work. 

Many of you host and endorse candidates. The line between permitted political activities and nonpermitted political activity can be 

very fine. And it is important that the taxpayers—the taxpayers— 

know which side you fall on. If there were an organization promoting taxpayer funding for abortions, wouldn’t you want to know 

what they were using that political money for or what candidates 

they were backing? What about a group that wanted to promote 

voting without ID? Or what if in the midst of—a few years ago, 

there was an increase of communist candidates in this country and 

new communist clubs wanted to be tax-exempt. Wouldn’t you want 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS
59 

to be sure that the self-declared tax-free classification of those 

groups was correct? 

The mistake here was that the staff organizing the organizations 

used the names of the organizations rather than the work they do 

and asked improper questions to figure that out. It is clearly 

wrong. It was inept, stupid, and a whole lot of other things. 

But let’s not get lost. During the Bush Administration, liberals 

were targeted without any concern by Mr. Issa or anyone else on 

this Committee. Republicans are looking for a conspiracy where 

there isn’t one. 

Mr. Issa says he can feel it in his gut that someone has broken 

the law. Well, you just ask yourself which is more likely, that midlevel employees overwhelmed by four times as many applications 

as before made stupid, irresponsible shortcuts or that there is an 

Administration-wide plot to take down community organizers? 

Let’s not forget, this happened under an IRS Commissioner appointed by George Bush and was investigated by a Republican Inspector General. 

What happened to you was unfair. It was unfair and incredibly 

inconvenient. But it was a mistake. Our job is to make sure it 

never happens again. I haven’t heard a single word here about 

what questions you think we ought to be able to ask you about 

your tax-exempt requests. 

Anything else, like the circus that is happening in the Oversight 

Committee or here, is simply political theater. It is diverting attention from what we ought to be doing on this Committee, which is 

rewriting the law if it is wrong. 

Chairman CAMP. All right. Thank you. Time has expired. 

Mr. Ryan is recognized. 

Mr. RYAN. I am going to deviate from my original question in 

response to what I just heard. 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman—— 

Mr. RYAN. Welcome to Washington. 

Chairman CAMP. The Committee will be in order. 

Mr. Ryan has the time. 

Mr. RYAN. We heard ‘‘Gingrich.’’ We heard ‘‘Bush.’’ We had the 

former IRS Commissioner Shulman, who knew about the political 

targeting long before Congress was told. It seems implied that the 

organizations were responsible for the targeting because they chose 

to apply for tax-exempt status. So you are to blame I guess is the 

message here. 

Do you think that you were targeted based upon your political 

beliefs, your religious beliefs, or just because you chose to apply? 

Ms. GERRITSON. We were targeted based on our beliefs, our 

views. 

Mr. RYAN. We had the Acting Commissioner Miller here a couple of weeks ago, and we asked him, were groups with the word 

‘‘organizing’’ or ‘‘progressive’’ in their name, were they targeted? 

The answer was no. 

We do know for a—this is one of the facts we now know: People 

were singled out because of their beliefs. 

Going back to my original line here. Mr. Kookogey, you are at 29 

months. 

Mr. KOOKOGEY. Twenty-nine months and counting. 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS
60 

Mr. RYAN. And counting. You haven’t been approved yet. 

Mr. KOOKOGEY. I have not been approved. 

Mr. RYAN. You have been asked, one of your inquiries, there 

were 90 questions asking you to provide a list of your members and 

donors, the political affiliation of your mentors, and your political 

position on virtually every issue important to you. 

Mr. KOOKOGEY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. RYAN. You are teaching Montesquieu, Cicero, Augustine, de 

Tocqueville, Washington. And it is 29 months and waiting, right? 

Mr. KOOKOGEY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. RYAN. Okay. 

Mr. Eastman, I want to get this one nailed down—Dr. Eastman, 

excuse me. You have proof that the IRS, an individual or a group 

of individuals at the IRS committed a felony, you have proof of 

this, and nothing has occurred to seek or find justice. Is that correct? 

Mr. EASTMAN. That is correct. Federal law requires that we be 

notified if there is an indictment brought. We have not been. Federal law allows us to request information about the status of the 

investigation, whether it has been productive or unproductive, and 

any action taken. We were refused any answer to that request, as 

well. We have identified that this document came from within the 

IRS. 

Mr. RYAN. So your donors are confidential; that is protected by 

law. You have proof that the IRS leaked your confidential donor information to a group that opposes your point of view, and your donors were harassed as a result of that. Is that correct? 

Mr. EASTMAN. Yes. 

Mr. RYAN. All right. 

Ms. Martinek, right next-door in Iowa—I work with groups very 

similar to what you do in Iowa. The IRS told you that if your board 

signed a letter saying that they would no longer picket or protest 

on behalf of the pro-life movement at Planned Parenthood, that 

then they could receive their tax-exempt status. Is that correct? 

Ms. MARTINEK. That is correct. 

Mr. RYAN. So surrender your First Amendment rights, and then 

we might approve your application. 

Ms. MARTINEK. That is correct. She said it was ready to go 

through, everything was in order, and as soon as they received that 

letter, the application would go through. 

Mr. RYAN. We have not heard any testimony that this is happening to groups that have the opposite views. So to suggest that 

these citizens are to blame for applying, I don’t understand how 

one can make that conclusion. 

I yield. 

Chairman CAMP. Thank you. 

Mr. Lewis is recognized. 

Mr. LEWIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I thank each of you for being here. I notice the makeup of the 

panel is half and half from the South and other parts of the country. I grew up in Alabama, went to school in Tennessee, I now live 

in Georgia, but I am happy to see people from other parts of the 

country. 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS
61 

No organization or individual, whether progressive or conservative, deserves the type of treatment that you received or experienced. The targeting of groups applying for tax-exempt status 

based solely on political views is completely unacceptable. It is a 

disservice to the American people. 

But let me be clear: It is also a disservice to apply a partisan 

lens to an issue that concerns all Americans. Since the days of the 

Bush Administration, groups with very political leanings have been 

scrutinized. Every single person in this room knows this. 

We must be honest with ourselves and with each other. This has 

nothing to do with red versus blue. In fact, for the past 10 years, 

all of the IRS Commissioners have been Republican appointees, appointed by President George Bush. 

Between 2004 and 2006, many liberal groups, including the 

NAACP, a progressive church, and an environmental group, were 

targeted by the Bush Administration. Where was the outrage then? 

Where was the sense of righteous indignation? 

As Members of this Committee, we must exercise our oversight 

role with the honesty and fairness that the American people expect 

and deserve. 

As we sit here today, let us also remember that the IRS has 

many good, hardworking employees who do a great job enforcing 

the Tax Code. We must not let the actions of a misguided few poison the reputation of the entire agency. If anything, we must come 

together to find a bipartisan solution to a bipartisan problem. 

Again, I want to thank each of you for taking the time, coming 

here, especially coming from Wetumpka, Alabama, not too far from 

Montgomery and from Troy, where I grew up—it is a great distance. And, again, thank you for being here. 

And thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I yield back my time. 

Chairman CAMP. Thank you. 

Mr. Nunes is recognized. 

Mr. NUNES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Kookogey, among the IRS agents who demanded answers to 

many intrusive questions, you received a letter with those demands 

from Ms. Lois Lerner in Washington, D.C.; is that correct? 

Mr. KOOKOGEY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. NUNES. Ms. Gerritson, you also received a letter from Ms. 

Lerner? 

Ms. GERRITSON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. NUNES. And, Ms. Kenney, you received a letter from Lois 

Lerner, no? 

Ms. KENNEY. It is in the materials I gave to the Committee, 

yes. 

Mr. NUNES. Okay. 

Did anyone else receive letters from Lois Lerner? Okay. 

So, Mr. Chairman, we have three witnesses here who received 

letters from Lois Lerner. Last week, or 2 weeks ago, Mr. Miller 

suggested that this was just confined to Cincinnati. Obviously, we 

have conflicting statements there between what Mr. Miller said 

and what actually happened, and I think we need to get to the bottom of that. 

Mr. Eastman, can you name the Treasury Inspector General for 

Tax Administration officials whom you discussed your case with? 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS
62 

Mr. EASTMAN. Not off the top of my head, but I can provide 

that to the Committee after the hearing. 

Mr. NUNES. Okay. If you can provide those after the hearing, 

I would appreciate it. 

Do you know if the leak of your tax information that included 

your organization’s donors, did it come from Washington, D.C., or 

Cincinnati, or do you know? 

Mr. EASTMAN. I don’t have any reason to believe that it came 

from Cincinnati. Our filing office is out in Utah, and the Washington office is who we have been dealing with. 

Mr. NUNES. Okay. 

Mr. Chairman, I think we should try to figure out where—perhaps the Inspector General has that information, which would 

speed up this process on this investigation of where this information was leaked from. Because, obviously, that would dispel the 

Cincinnati narrative that is out there. 

Ms. Martinek, the IRS agent who handled your case was Ms. 

Richards? 

Ms. MARTINEK. That is correct. 

Mr. NUNES. Does Ms. Richards have a first name? 

Ms. MARTINEK. She never gave her first name. 

Mr. NUNES. Okay. Did you correspond with any other IRS 

agents about your case? 

Ms. MARTINEK. I did not, but our attorney, Sally Wagenmaker, 

did. 

Mr. NUNES. Okay. Could you provide the names of who she corresponded with to this Committee? 

Ms. MARTINEK. Yes. 

Mr. NUNES. Did Ms. Richards ever indicate she was discussing 

your case or seeking guidance from anyone else at the IRS? 

Ms. MARTINEK. Yes, she did, a couple of times. She put me on 

hold, and then said, I must check with my supervisors. 

Mr. NUNES. So you don’t know the name. 

Ms. MARTINEK. She never gave me a name. 

Mr. NUNES. Were they in Cincinnati or somewhere else? 

Ms. MARTINEK. I don’t know that. 

Mr. NUNES. You don’t know. Okay. 

Ms. Belsom, you were contacted by Mr. Joseph Herr? 

Ms. BELSOM. Yes. 

Mr. NUNES. And did you correspond with any other agents 

about your case? 

Ms. BELSOM. No. 

Mr. NUNES. Just Mr. Herr? 

Ms. BELSOM. Yes. 

Mr. NUNES. Did Mr. Herr ever indicate that he was talking to 

someone else within the agency? 

Ms. BELSOM. I didn’t speak to him on the phone, we just had 

the initial letter. Then I contacted the ACLJ, and they dealt with 

him. 

Mr. NUNES. Okay. So you don’t know if it came from Washington or Cincinnati. 

Ms. BELSOM. Well, he is in the—the address he gave on the letter he sent that he signed, it said Cincinnati. 

Mr. NUNES. Cincinnati. Okay. 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS
63 

Mr. Chairman, in light of today’s testimony, I think that we 

should bring these—at least Mr. Herr, Mr. Steele, Ms. Faye Ng, 

and Ms. Richards, who doesn’t have a first name, we should try to 

figure out who these people are and, I think, bring them before the 

Committee or at least conduct interviews with these folks. 

I also remain concerned about Ms. Lerner, who pled the Fifth but 

has said she didn’t do anything wrong. We should probably try to 

get her before this Committee, and also her colleague, Mr. Joseph 

Grant, who was promoted just weeks before and then resigned immediately. I think they could maybe shed some light on who violated the constitutional rights of these witnesses and many rights 

of many Americans. 

And I will yield back. 

Chairman CAMP. All right. Thank you. 

Mr. Neal is recognized. 

Mr. NEAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thanks for calling today’s hearing. 

What we have heard today and what we have heard in previous 

hearings is certainly very troubling. The IRS touches every American, and it is critical that Americans should trust the IRS and not 

be intimidated or be afraid of the IRS. These reports, including today’s testimony, of targeting by the IRS of organizations based on 

their political views, religion, or opposition to the Administration’s 

policies is certainly unacceptable. 

I am also troubled by the mismanagement of the IRS in handling 

tax-exemption applications and the lack of oversight of the screening process. Acting Commissioner Miller last week, based on questioning that I had offered, highlighted a case of one of my constituents who followed the advice of the IRS, only to be penalized a few 

years later. Americans certainly should be able to rely on the advice of the IRS without punishment. 

The inconsistencies in information and failure by the IRS to 

provide Congress with information in its oversight role certainly is 

unacceptable, as well. It is unbelievable to me that Lois Lerner testified before this Committee just a few days before her apology at 

the ABA conference without informing the Committee as to what 

she was going to say at the ABA conference. That demonstrated a 

lack of regard for our role. 

So I appreciate very much, Mr. Chairman, your hearing and calling it today. We need to get to the bottom of these problems and 

work together to identify solutions on what I hope will be a bipartisan basis. 

But we can’t forget something here that is even more egregious 

than some of the actions of the IRS, and that is the underlying 

problem: 501(c)(4)s are engaged in political activity. 

After Citizens United, the IRS was flooded with applications 

from groups seeking 501(c)(4) status. Why was that? In large part, 

it is because the super PACs must disclose their donors, which 

501(c)(4)s do not. 

That is not meant as a political statement. Both conservative and 

liberal groups have taken advantage of the lack of transparency of 

501(c)(4) status, and it is equally troubling in both cases. In reference to Mr. Ryan’s statement earlier, there were Democratic 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS
64 

groups that were targeted. Previous testimony indicated that. And 

that should be noted, as well. 

So I hope, Mr. Chairman, that you are going to include a thorough review of 501(c)(4) status as we seek to address the issue. 

Now, Ms. Kenney, just a question. I appreciate very much your 

work with veterans, including the fact that there are 1,700,000 new 

veterans. That number is probably going to reach 2 million, as you 

know. 

Now, you did, in your opening testimony, indicate that you have 

an invitation that you extend to a wide range of groups and candidates. But you also indicated that Democrats did not attend 

based upon the invitation that you have extended. Why do you 

think that would be? 

Ms. KENNEY. I have no idea. 

Mr. NEAL. Okay. 

That is the end of my questioning, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. 

Chairman CAMP. Thank you. 

Mr. Tiberi is recognized. 

Mr. TIBERI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for providing this hearing today and the outstanding witnesses. The testimony has been 

breathtaking. 

And I would like to remind all the Members of the Committee 

that this is far beyond 501(c)(4) status. Mr. Chairman, you may recall the gentleman that I introduced who was in the audience at 

the last hearing, Justin Binik-Thomas, question number 26. And I 

would like to work with you to submit some information on that 

particular case. Congresswoman Schmidt was his representative, 

and she submitted—suburban Cincinnati—to the IRS questions regarding why Mr. Thomas was question number 26 on a 501(c)(3) 

application for a suburban Cincinnati organization. To this day, 

they have not received their status, and to this day, this American 

doesn’t know why he was question number 26. And so I would like 

to work with you, Mr. Chairman, on trying to get answers to both 

of those questions. 

I was shocked to find out on Friday, with a question from a lawyer in my district, about another matter dealing with the IRS. This 

lawyer represents an organization that is a taxable nonprofit, a 

taxable nonprofit. They filed their first tax return with the IRS in 

February of this year, Mr. Chairman. The organization’s name was 

We the People Convention, Inc. in Ohio. 

They received a letter from the IRS on April 30th, and it says, 

‘‘Dear taxpayer. On February 21st, we received your Form 1120 for 

the tax period shown above. We are sorry we cannot process your 

return as filed. Our records indicate the above-named account, We 

the People, is a political corporation. And, thus, as a political corporation, you are required to file Form 1120–POL and file for taxexempt status.’’ 

The IRS had no information other than the name ‘‘We the People’’ for an organization that wanted to pay taxes, and their return 

was rejected in April of this year, Mr. Chairman. 

The lawyer wrote back to the IRS—by the way, not the TaxExempt Division, another division within the IRS, Input Corrections Operation within the IRS. And the letter from the lawyer 

says, ‘‘This organization was formed as a nonprofit corporation in 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS
65 

Ohio in February of 2011. The stated purpose of the entity is a 

coming together of Ohio citizens for the purpose of sharing knowledge, experience, information, and ideas about the governance of 

our State, as well as for any lawful purposes. The activities of the 

organization are focused upon planning and holding an annual 

meeting to discuss civic and social welfare. The organization is not 

involved in any activities designed to directly or indirectly influence the outcome of any election. Thus, the organization does not 

meet the statutory test as an entity that can claim tax-exempt status under IRC Section 527 and has not attempted to claim such 

status.’’ 

Mr. Chairman, we are only scratching the surface of where this 

goes. Not a tax-exempt organization, this organization is a taxable 

nonprofit. So for the Members of this Committee who think that 

this is about just tax-exempt status—which, by the way, is legal— 

this shows that we are only scratching the surface, Mr. Chairman. 

I appreciate your leadership on this. The testimony is fabulous. 

My mom and dad came to America, crossed the Atlantic. And I 

have to tell you, ladies and gentlemen, this is shocking to me. 

I yield back. 

Chairman CAMP. All right. 

Mr. Doggett. 

Mr. DOGGETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you for your testimony today. 

The last hearing that we had on this subject featured as the lead 

witness the Inspector General of the Internal Revenue Service, a 

career Republican who had worked for two Republican Senators, 

who was appointed by President George W. Bush, and who had 

broad investigative powers. 

He identified wrongdoing at the IRS. I agree with his findings, 

agree that whether it is one of these organizations, any of the 298 

applications that Mr. Levin identified from his report that were set 

aside, 96 of them appearing to be of perhaps a political orientation 

like the groups that are here today and perhaps one like Progress 

Texas in my hometown, which received a similar letter and has 

very dissimilar political beliefs from those expressed here today, 

whatever the political beliefs, the Inspector General is right: Folks 

should never have to worry about whether the tax collector is looking at their political beliefs or activities in making a decision. 

The Inspector General had more to say, however, after the very 

strong opening statement of our Chairman about what the report 

signified. I asked him specifically if he had found any evidence of 

the corruption at the IRS, as charged. He said, no, he had not. I 

asked, since there was a charge opening our hearing, whether our 

tax system is rotten at the core. He indicated, no, definitely not. 

I asked him whether there was any evidence to support from his 

thorough investigation the charge of the Chairman that the IRS 

picks who wins and who loses in America. He responded, I don’t 

believe that is the case. I agree with him on those findings, as well. 

Indeed, there is a question and a serious problem at the IRS with 

regard to the basic issue of which groups in our country the taxpayers should subsidize. We do not subsidize the Democratic or the 

Republican or the Libertarian Party, and we should not. And we 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS
66 

should not subsidize groups that act in a similar way to promote 

political activity. 

This Congress was very clear on that point, clear on it in 1913 

and in repeated recodifications of what is now 501(c)(4). It said that 

they must be operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare. Only at a later time, through a regulation, through a rule that 

seems to have conflict directly with the clear wording of the statute, did the IRS act to give itself discretion to explore organizations 

just like those before us today. 

I think the IRS was wrong here. It did so during the Administration of President Dwight Eisenhower in 1959, and in more recent 

years, particularly after the decision in Citizens United, suggested 

that we would have tens of millions, indeed hundreds of millions, 

of tax-subsidized money poured in, with secret, undisclosed contributors, into the election process to pollute our democracy. 

An organization before the last election, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, petitioned the IRS to act about 

this and to go back to the original clear, unequivocal wording of the 

statute that had existed since 1913. The IRS did not respond, except with a ‘‘we’ll think about it’’-type letter. The Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington has petitioned again this 

year for the Treasury Department to act on this matter. I have 

asked them, as have other Members of this Congress, to do the 

same. 

I don’t believe that the Internal Revenue Service, the Treasury 

Department should be providing tax subsidies to organizations that 

are not engaged exclusively in social welfare, whether their name 

is Progress Texas or the 9–12 Patriots or any other self-styled 

name they may want to apply to themselves. 

This is the second hearing on this subject in a very short period 

of time. We have now had some 37 votes on whether to repeal the 

Affordable Care Act. I am sure this is not the last hearing on this 

topic, and the two are closely related. 

The Internal Revenue Service has an important function to play 

in carrying out the provisions of the Affordable Care Act. It is to 

assess those working- and middle-class families who are entitled to 

receive some premium assistance in acquiring insurance. And the 

IRS needs to carry out that job effectively and fully. The two are 

directly related: The goal of insuring that the IRS cannot fulfill its 

responsibilities. 

I yield back. 

Chairman CAMP. Thank you. 

I will just note for the record that the Inspector General report 

was an audit and that the Inspector General indicated that he 

would be completing a full investigation of this matter in the future. 

So I will recognize Mr. Reichert for 5 minutes. 

Mr. REICHERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

You know, the Supreme Court has already decided this issue. 

And some of our friends may disagree with the Supreme Court’s 

decision, just like some of us on this side of the aisle might disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision on forcing Americans to 

buy health insurance, but it is the law of the land. 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS
67 

So let’s kind of step back and see where we are. Last week, or 

2 weeks ago, we had a hearing where Mr. George and Mr. Miller 

appeared. Mr. Miller accepted the IG’s report; he said he accepted 

it fully. But on the other hand, he said, I don’t agree with the use 

of the word ‘‘targeted’’ in the report, even though it was used 16 

times. 

Mr. Miller would not even agree that certain organizations 

and/or individuals were treated differently in this process. He did, 

however, say, as the Chairman said, ‘‘We provided poor customer 

service.’’ ‘‘Poor customer service.’’ 

So I didn’t have a lot of time to ask Mr. Miller additional questions, but—so I am trying to figure this out. Was Mr. Miller asked 

to resign by the President of the United States because he provided 

poor customer service? Well, if Mr. Miller provided poor customer 

service and was asked to resign by the President, who else provided poor customer service that should be asked to resign under 

Mr. Miller, under Ms. Lerner, under the other names that were 

brought up, would be my question. 

Rather, we know that it was more than poor customer service, 

because Mr. Miller goes on to say, well, while it was just poor customer service, I want to apologize. And then he came up with excuses. Then he said that, you know, there was really no intent here 

to treat anybody differently or wrongly, there was no—this was an 

effort by good employees to be efficient. To be efficient? By asking 

you hundreds of questions about your personal lives, that is efficiency? I don’t think so. 

And the word ‘‘inadvertent’’ was used, as we talked about Dr. 

Eastman’s release of information, tax information. That is not inadvertent. 

There is more investigation to do. I have said many times in this 

forum—most people know that I am a retired police officer, 33 

years as a cop. There are a lot of questions to ask here. 

When I asked Mr. Miller who he spoke to about this to try to find 

out who came up with the criteria that all of you had to respond 

to, he didn’t remember at first but finally gave me the title of a 

person that he spoke to. And I finally said, what is the name of 

the person? He said it was Nancy Marks. 

Did any of you speak with Nancy Marks or receive any communication at all from Nancy Marks? 

Mr. Chairman, I would suggest, along with Mr. Nunes, that we 

think about having Nancy Marks appear in front of this panel to 

find out what she knew, because Mr. Miller couldn’t remember at 

all what that conversation was about. 

There are other names that have been brought up here today, 

and I would just ask if there are any other names from any of the 

panelists that are appearing before this Committee today? Do you 

have any other names of people that you contacted, that you have 

spoken with, that you have received emails from? Could you provide those? 

And I will just start with—say your name one more time for me. 

Mr. KOOKOGEY. Mr. Kookogey. 

Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Kookogey. Could you please provide me 

with any names that you could think of of people that you have 

had communication with? 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS
68 

Mr. KOOKOGEY. Yes. The first agent on my case was Sheila 

May Robinson. Then my case was switched to the desk of Mr. Ron 

Bell, and he was the one who advised me that he was waiting on 

guidance from his superiors as to my organization and other similar organizations. 

It was then passed to Mr. Mitch Steele. And then the most recent letter, which came as recently as May 6th, was from a woman 

whose name I can’t pronounce. 

Mr. REICHERT. Well, we can get it from you later. 

Mr. KOOKOGEY. Thank you. 

Mr. REICHERT. Ms. Belsom. 

Ms. BELSOM. Joseph Herr was the only one, H-e-r-r. 

Mr. REICHERT. Dr. Eastman. 

Mr. EASTMAN. Yeah, we had a couple of investigators from the 

Inspector General’s Office that we have been dealing with, and I 

will provide those names to the Committee. 

Mr. REICHERT. Ms. Kenney. 

Ms. KENNEY. Mitch Steele. 

Mr. REICHERT. And other names possibly? 

Ms. KENNEY. Holly Paz comes to mind. 

Mr. REICHERT. Okay. 

Ms. Martinek. 

Ms. MARTINEK. I will provide that. 

Ms. GERRITSON. Robert Choi. I have an ID number for one of 

the workers; I don’t have his name. 

Mr. REICHERT. Please. 

Ms. GERRITSON. Ronald Bell, Stephen Seok, Lois Lerner, and 

Holly Paz. And on the last page of my testimony is my timeline, 

and all these names are in there, as well as that ID number. 

Mr. REICHERT. All right. Thank you. 

I yield back. 

Chairman CAMP. Thank you. 

Mr. Thompson is recognized. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I want to thank all the witnesses for taking your time to be 

here. It is important that we figure all of this out. 

Ms. Kenney, I want to particularly thank you for your work with 

veterans. Being one myself, I appreciate that very, very much. 

And I also wanted to state for the record what I said the last 

time we had a hearing on this: I believe that it is outrageous, it 

is inappropriate, it is wrong, and we must do everything that we 

can do to fix it to make sure that it never happens again. 

Ms. Belsom, you—and I probably won’t get it exactly correct, but 

you said something along the lines of, this needs to be investigated, 

those responsible need to be held accountable for any targeting of 

conservative groups. I agree. But I also believe that any targeting 

of any group, anybody that does that needs to be held accountable. 

It is important—— 

Ms. BELSOM. You are absolutely right. 

Mr. THOMPSON. It is important that we hear about these 

abuses. However, we all know that it is bad, it is wrong, and we 

all know that it must never happen again. We know we need to fix 

it. 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS
69 

So, Mr. Chairman, it is time that we stipulate that this is wrong, 

that it is abusive, that it needs to—it never should have happened. 

And we need to know what we need to do to get it fixed. We need 

to make sure that it never happens to conservative groups, we need 

to make sure that it never happens to liberal groups, we need to 

make sure that it never happens to any group. 

The IG’s report said that the Cincinnati staff of the IRS had 

questions about the law and how it was to be applied and that they 

weren’t given adequate guidance nor supervision, even after they 

asked for it. That is bad management—at its best, it is bad management. And I think that the subsequent stories we have heard 

about these staff retreats that the IRS has been taking, I think, 

bolsters that fact, that there is a huge problem with bad management in that organization. 

But the truth is we share a little bit of that responsibility. We 

have oversight over that operation. And we need to be bearing 

down to figure out how it is, how in the world can you even do that 

stuff without somebody knowing about it, without somebody recognizing it for what it is? The idea that you just take your staff and 

you go off someplace and make not even a B-rated film to try to 

build some sort of better staff arrangements? Not one of us could 

do that in our office. This Committee couldn’t do that. Why is it 

that a bureaucracy can do that? 

We have a responsibility in this Committee, and I think we 

ought to get to doing our work to make sure that we fix this problem. We don’t need to hear any more witnesses. We know it was 

bad. It is terrible what you and everybody else had to go through. 

It is terrible when any government entity doesn’t do their job and 

puts taxpayers through the ringer. Let’s get it fixed, Mr. Chairman. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman CAMP. All right. Thank you. 

I will now go two-to-one. Dr. Boustany. 

Mr. BOUSTANY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I want to thank all of you for being here today and providing 

your testimony. 

Mr. Eastman, how did you find out that your donor list had been 

leaked to the IRS? 

Mr. EASTMAN. It appeared on a website of the Human Rights 

Campaign, which is our principal political opponent. 

Mr. BOUSTANY. So somebody in your organization happened to 

be looking at that? 

Mr. EASTMAN. Somebody called it to our attention. We saw 

that. We saw that there were redactions. This was March 30th of 

2012. Within a few days, our computer forensic people had been 

able to unlayer the redactions, and we saw that it came from within the IRS itself. 

Mr. BOUSTANY. Thank you. 

I have on the screen there some documents side-by-side. These 

documents were taken, I believe, from the Huffington Post, and one 

of them has a redaction. Could you explain what is going on there? 

Mr. EASTMAN. Sure. These are the Schedule B forms attached 

to our 990 tax returns. Like all nonprofits, we have to make public 

our 990 forms, but the Schedule B, which is the list of our donors, 

is as confidential as our private tax returns. 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS
70 

The document on the left with the redaction across the center is 

the document that appeared on the website of the Human Rights 

Campaign. The document on the right is that same PDF file but 

with the redaction layer removed. And you see across the center diagonally the internal IRS document number that is affixed by the 

IRS computer. At the top of the page you see the language, you 

know, this is a live tax return from the internal IRS system, ‘‘For 

Official Use Only.’’ 

Mr. BOUSTANY. So this was the first time that you became 

aware of this, in the Huffington Post. And it was taken from an adversarial group’s website. 

Mr. EASTMAN. Yes. The Human Rights Campaign, which is our 

chief adversary, posted it on their website. The Huffington Post and 

a number of other media outlets then linked to that illegally disclosed tax return. 

Mr. BOUSTANY. So, at that point in time, you then went on to 

try to determine what course of action the IRS or Department of 

Treasury was going to take; is that correct? 

Mr. EASTMAN. That is correct. We filed specific requests for investigation with the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration. And because there are felony violations at issue here, we 

filed a request for investigation with the Department of Justice 

Criminal Division, as well. 

Mr. BOUSTANY. And you were stonewalled—— 

Mr. EASTMAN. Well, the investigation—I have the full list of 

the TIGTA agents that were involved. They wanted to close off the 

possibility that this had just been leaked by somebody internal to 

our own organization. I think the evidence, the document speaks 

for itself that it came from the IRS. But I suppose it is possible 

that somebody might have asked for a copy of our own tax return 

back and then went to the trouble of leaking it. So they wanted to 

close that door off. 

But once that door closed, that was the last we had heard of the 

investigation. And, as I said, that was the summer of 2012, almost 

a year ago. 

Mr. BOUSTANY. But that document with the number on there, 

the IRS number on there, indicates that this came from the IRS? 

Mr. EASTMAN. The IRS’ own internal manual specifically says 

that that is put on every tax return automatically for any return 

that gets electronically filed with the IRS. And it is not a document 

that we have in our records, because we of course filed the clean 

version. And once it is filed, that is the document that gets ‘‘For 

Official Use Only’’ placed on it. 

Mr. BOUSTANY. And you have not been notified, despite a FOIA 

request and other means of action, you have not been notified as 

to what recourse or actions are being taken as of this date? 

Mr. EASTMAN. No. In fact, Federal law requires that we be notified if anybody is charged with the illegal disclosure of our returns. We have received no such notification. 

Our specific requests tied directly to what is authorized to be disclosed to a taxpayer whose returns were illegally disclosed: The 

status of the investigation, the results of it, whether the investigation remains open or closed, whether our complaints were substantiated or not substantiated. This is the language from the regulaVerDate Sep 11 2014 06:57 Jan 26, 2017 Jkt 021123 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 I:\WAYS\WAYSPS\21123\21123.XXX 21123

dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS
71 

tion itself. We asked for that specific information, and we were told 

we could not have it because any result of their investigation was 

itself protected taxpayer information. 

Mr. BOUSTANY. Thank you. 

I have to say, you know, that Ranking Member Levin mentioned 

avoiding speculation, I think, in his opening statement. And I could 

say, and it is pretty evident here, that we have seen egregious 

abuse, intimidation, certainly mismanagement, and this cannot be 

tolerated. It cannot be tolerated in our system of government. We 

have to get to the bottom of this. We have to get to the facts of 

what happened. And those responsible will be held accountable 

under the full—fully under the law. 

And the other thing that we have to do is we have to restore the 

checks and balances, which provides the opportunity for Congress 

to do legitimate oversight. 

And I have to tell you, Mr. Eastman, this is egregious, and we 

are going to get to the bottom of it. And the IRS can no longer 

withhold this information. We will get it. 

Thank you. 

Chairman CAMP. Thank you. 

Mr. Roskam is recognized. 

Mr. ROSKAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

You know, the question before us today is, who decides who gets 

to participate in the public square? Is it bureaucrats, or is it the 

American people? 

I am heartened today. And I know that there is sort of an ominous feeling about what is going on, but I am actually heartened 

by the example of you six who have come forward, because you 

know what you did? You kept faith in America. You kept faith. And 

no matter how big the swells were, no matter how big the storm 

cloud was, no matter how overwhelming the feeling was, you were 

faithful. And God bless you for being faithful. 

And we are here in a country where some of us, we are trying 

to reach out now, and we are all in this together, and we are trying 

to say, look, this is a great country that we have, and it is worth 

celebrating, it is worth defending, it is worth articulating these 

founding values. And I am so deeply appreciative of your willingness to keep faith when it was overwhelming. 

But, look, history is filled with this story. And it always works 

out well when those who are entrusted with responsibility—that is 

us—listen to the complaints of the public, sort out fact from fiction, 

and then do our work. And I am telling you what? Based on your 

faithfulness, I think this comes to a very good end. 

Now, let me tell you a story. An unrelated Federal agency, the 

Federal Election Commission, intervened unfairly in a 1996 election for the United States Senate in the State of Illinois. A friend 

of mine, former law partner, was the Republican nominee, Al Salvi. 

He was falsely accused of breaking Federal law. The Federal Election Commission sued him; the case was dismissed. The Federal 

Election Commission tried to manipulate him into paying an outrageous fine. The Federal Election Commission kept losing and losing and losing. 

Finally, Al says, ‘‘I would like to speak to the person with authority in this case, because surely if they understood the facts, they 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS
72 

would dismiss this case.’’ The person at the other end of the phone 

in charge of enforcement at the time said, ‘‘We will dismiss this 

case if you pledge to never run for office again.’’ The person at the 

other end of that phone was Lois Lerner. In the words of my son 

Steve, ‘‘I’m just saying.’’ 

Now, Ms. Martinek, as we are listening and we hear about these 

First Amendment rights of yours, cumulatively, that have been 

trampled, there is something particularly egregious, I think, about 

the first of our first freedoms—that is, our freedom to worship, our 

freedom to avoid government compulsion as it relates to matters of 

faith. And what you have described is the long arm of the Federal 

Government coming in to you, coming in to your organization, and 

essentially telling you, we’ll tell you what to think, we’ll tell you 

how to pray. Heaven help us. Heaven help us. 

This Congress opens on a daily basis in prayer. Moments ago, 

this place opened in prayer. We have prayer groups that are honeycombed throughout the Capitol praying for God’s mercy for this 

country, praying for wisdom, praying for strength, praying for clarity. And we have a Federal agency that comes in and tries to get 

into your business? It is an outrage. 

And so what you are sensing today from those of us on this Committee is a sense of real clarity about what is going on. This is not 

about ambiguity in the law. This is not about any such thing. This 

is about abuse of power. 

And so what you have done—and I thank you for doing this— 

what you have done is you have lit a lamp and you have clanged 

a bell and you have rallied people around you to make this right. 

And so I know I speak for many on this Committee, we will get 

this right. 

I yield back. 

Chairman CAMP. Thank you. 

Mr. Blumenauer is recognized. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I, too, appreciate the patience of the witnesses coming today 

and telling their stories. 

I think we are all united in denouncing the treatment that you 

were accorded and especially the disclosure of confidential tax information. And I am looking forward to the Committee moving forward, as I think everybody has expressed, to get to the bottom of 

it. 

I appreciate our colleague, Mr. Thompson, talking about the 

Committee doing its job, figuring out what we do going forward. 

But part of what is coming clear to me is that there is a fundamental flaw in the way that we have allowed a clear statute to be 

modified by a regulation that invites abuse. It puts bureaucrats in 

a position where they can legitimately start probing around these 

questions, and I think that is inappropriate. 

Part of the problem I see is illustrated by part of Dr. Eastman’s 

testimony, where he talks about his chief adversary in their political struggles, the Human Rights Campaign. That doesn’t sound, I 

mean, at least in my mind, when we are engaged in promoting the 

common good and general welfare, then somehow we are talking 

about being political adversaries. 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS
73 

The National Organization for Marriage was established in 2007 

to pass a proposition in California to stop our gay and lesbian citizens from marrying the person they love. ‘‘Promoting social welfare.’’ 

An internal National Organization of Marriage document last 

year stated the organization seeks ‘‘to drive a wedge’’ between gays 

and blacks by promoting ‘‘African-American spokespeople for marriage,’’ thus provoking same-sex marriage supporters into ‘‘denouncing these spokesmen and -women as bigots,’’ and to interrupt 

the assimilation of Latinos into ‘‘dominant Anglo culture’’ by making the stance against same-sex marriage a ‘‘key badge of Latino 

identity.’’ And none of this has been denied by the National Organization for Marriage. 

It has called for portraying President Obama as a ‘‘social radical’’ 

and seeking to cast same-sex marriage in a negative light, connecting it to issues like pornography. Social welfare? I think not. 

It is everybody’s right to participate in politics, and well you 

should. But I think having organizations parading as being social 

welfare organizations and then being involved in the political combat harkens back to why the statute 100 years ago said that they 

were prohibited and why I wholeheartedly agree with my colleague, 

Mr. Doggett, saying we ought to stop this regulation interpretation 

from 1959 that invites people to raise vast sums of money and keep 

it secret and to engage in political activity, and some of it, I think, 

not necessarily promoting the social welfare of our country. 

Everybody ought to play by the same rules. We ought to go back 

to the original intent. We ought to eliminate opportunities for bureaucrats in the Internal Revenue Service making these judgments 

about whether it is primarily social welfare or not. It shouldn’t be 

involved with politics at all. 

And until, I think, we do our job as a Committee to reinstate 

that original intent, that we overrule that regulation, we won’t be 

doing our job completely. Rout out the problems, find out who 

leaked confidential information, make sure that this is administered properly down in the ranks of the IRS. But let’s stop this charade of pretending that these are social welfare organizations and 

admit that they are political, treat them as such, and play by the 

same rules that everybody on the Committee plays by when we are 

involved in politics. 

Thank you, and I yield back. 

Chairman CAMP. Thank you. 

Dr. Price. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to thank you 

so very much for continuing this evaluation of what has been described during this hearing today as ‘‘chilling,’’ ‘‘shocking,’’ ‘‘fearful,’’ ‘‘felt betrayed,’’ ‘‘unconscionable,’’ ‘‘unbelievable,’’ ‘‘frightening,’’ 

‘‘intimidating,’’ ‘‘using the government as a weapon against the citizens.’’ 

You know, sometimes when we walk out of the Capitol in the 

evening, we have some significant emotion about something that 

has just occurred during the course of that day. I am going to walk 

out today saddened—saddened that we find ourselves in a situation 

where our government is in activity with its citizens that results 

in those adjectives, in those descriptions. 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS
74 

I want to echo Mr. Roskam’s compliments to you all. Thank you, 

thank you, thank you, thank you for your trust and your faith in 

our government and in our system. 

It is that trust that is being eroded, though. And our system of 

government only works if that trust exists. And our job is to restore 

that trust. And your involvement today, your participation today, 

your participation over the past number of years will help greatly 

restore that trust. 

One way to do that, by the way, is to institute fundamental tax 

reform, have an IRS that isn’t powerful. How about an IRS that 

just processes a form? How about an IRS that says, you have identified what you make, you have identified what kind of exemptions 

may exist, and this is what you owe? And maybe it is that simple. 

Maybe it is that simple. 

Dr. Eastman, I am stunned at the—— 

Mr. EASTMAN. As am I. 

Mr. PRICE [continuing]. Magnitude of the disclosure that you 

bring before us today. And I am sorry that I wasn’t aware of it, the 

significance of it before today. 

And people have asked you very, very specific questions to inform 

the American people and to inform this Committee. I want to ask 

you about your donors, your donors being listed publicly. You mentioned that they were harassed. Put some flesh on that. What does 

that mean? How have the donors been harassed? 

Mr. EASTMAN. I can begin with the story of Proposition 8 in 

California. And before I get to that, I really have to respond to the 

scurrilous things that were said on the other side. 

Representative Blumenauer, it is your kind of statements that 

have empowered IRS agents to make determinations about which 

organizations qualify for the public good and which do not. The notion that defending traditional marriage doesn’t qualify as a defense of a public good is beyond preposterous. 

And how sad it is, Representative Doggett, how sad it is that 

efforts to educate about our Constitution have become a partisan 

political issue that you think people ought not to get tax-exempt 

status for. 

Let me go back now to this question. 

Beginning in Proposition 8, people’s names were disclosed as donors. Their businesses were boycotted. If there was an employee at 

a business, that business was boycotted. They were harassed, they 

were assaulted on the streets, their property was vandalized. 

And this has now pervaded across the Nation every time our 

donor list gets disclosed to the point that our donors tell us, we are 

fearful of giving money to you to help support the cause that we 

believe in because our businesses and our families are at risk. 

It is the very reason, as I pointed out with Mr. Lewis, that 

NAACP v. Alabama held the constitutional right to keep people’s 

names and identities confidential when the risk of intimidation 

rises to the level that it has. 

Mr. PRICE. Dr. Eastman, I would appreciate it if you would provide for the Committee some of the specifics regarding that. It is 

absolutely chilling. 

I have a couple other quick questions that I think we can 

squeeze in before the end. 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS
75 

Ms. Martinek, in what year did you receive the questionnaire 

from the IRS about your prayer gatherings? 

Ms. MARTINEK. In 2009. 

Mr. PRICE. In 2009. 

Ms. Belsom, we are told that the IRS ended their interrogations 

in mid-2012, but that isn’t your experience, is it? 

Ms. BELSOM. You are talking to me? 

Mr. PRICE. Yes. 

Ms. BELSOM. Yeah, I mean, we turned in everything on March 

5th, I believe, 2013. And we still have—— 

Mr. PRICE. In 2013. 

Ms. BELSOM [continuing]. We have heard nothing since then. 

Mr. PRICE. Mr. Chairman, I just make that point, because the 

Inspector General said that the challenges occurred between March 

of 2010 and ended in mid-2012. Clearly, that is not the case. 

Chairman CAMP. All right. Thank you. 

Mr. Buchanan. 

Mr. BUCHANAN. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this important hearing. 

And I also want to thank all of our witnesses. I applaud your 

leadership in terms of the effort. 

All of us have a different background. I was in business 30 years, 

and came here in 2007. One of the things I have tried to do is, 

when I got here, the sense was nobody was listening in Washington. So I probably as much as anybody here, I know a lot of our 

colleagues do it on both sides, I do a lot of town halls, a lot of meetings, and I started that in 2007. 

And I can tell you one thing with a lot of the conservative 

groups—and I did go to Tea Party groups. I didn’t agree with anything, and many of the groups didn’t want politicians there. But 

the bottom line was they were scared to death of what was going 

on in this country. I heard a lot of those conversations. In terms 

of the debt, the deficit, the stimulus, the TARP, they felt and I felt 

we were going broke as a country. And that is why I applaud what 

you are doing here today and your leadership from that standpoint. 

Because my mindset is, it is very real. 

And the year I came in, we had a $130 billion deficit in 2006, 

2007, in that period of time. That deficit went up to $1.3 trillion 

in 4 years. And I can just tell you, that is what brought a lot of 

the energy. There are different issues, but at the core of a lot of 

these conservative groups, they can do the math, and when you go 

from $8 trillion to $16 trillion quickly to $20 trillion—and I heard 

a lot about that. And I, obviously, as a business guy, know in terms 

of balancing budgets; 49 out of 50 Governors have to do it. 

People were very concerned, not just about themselves. More importantly, they were concerned about their children and grandchildren. Because I represent the State of Florida, and a lot of people have done well there in my district, and they were concerned 

about the next two generations. 

Now, that being said, my question is, there is no question that 

you were targeted, harassed, humiliated to some extent. But how 

did that impede your growth to your organizations in terms of realizing your full potential when you look at that? 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS
76 

And I want to start out with Mr. Kookogey. You had mentioned 

it affected one aspect from your standpoint, it affected your organization in terms of a donor that could have contributed but you 

couldn’t get your paperwork put in in time. 

But what impacts did it have on all of you in terms of realizing 

your full potential as organizations? Can you comment on that, 

please? 

Mr. KOOKOGEY. Sure. As you noted, we were promised a $30,000 grant upon achieving status. Because that status has 

taken so long, the organization came to us and said, we will have 

to move that off the books, and when you get status, you can reapply. 

This organization also added that it was unbelievable, in his 

mind, in his 25 years of being an Executive Director of granting 

money to all sorts of nonprofits, he had never seen anything like 

this. He had never seen any nonprofit that he had dealt with not 

get through in 2 or 3 months. 

As to the impact, a lot of people know that with a nonprofit— 

remember, I am a (c)(3). It is all about establishing trust. If one 

credible foundation puts money into the organization, I can use 

that then to go to other organizations and say, this organization 

has trusted my organization; will you now contribute? Because I 

could not get status, everything effectively stopped. 

And since May 2011, I have been dormant, not only out of the 

inability to raise money, but out of the abject fear that the government had a target on my back. 

Mr. BUCHANAN. Ms. Belsom, could you just comment? What 

impact did it have on keeping you or your organization from full 

potential? 

Ms. BELSOM. Yeah. I just wanted to make a couple of quick 

comments before I answer that. 

There seems to be some misconceptions about what a (c)(4) organization, as far as—I mean, I am totally outraged by the accusation 

that we are somehow subsidized by the taxpayers. People making 

donations to a (c)(4) organization, that is not a tax-deductible 

amount. We are not getting any money from the taxpayers. 

What we are saying is, hey, if we want to have a group of people 

pay dues or make a donation that at the end of the year or whatever, that we are not subject to then pay taxes on that money 

again, which has already been taxed when the person earned it to 

begin with. So this is a real outrage, to imply that somehow we are 

taking money from starving children to fund our groups. 

You know, that being the case, I can’t say that this investigation 

being ongoing for the past 3 years has really impeded us because 

the donations are not tax-deductible. So people have donated as 

they saw fit. And we have just operated as if we were a (c)(4) since 

it has been pending. 

Mr. BUCHANAN. Mr. Eastman, do you want to answer? 

Mr. EASTMAN. Yeah, let me put this in context. In the Proposition 8 fight in California, the opposing sides raised roughly equivalent amounts of money. But with the disclosure of donor lists and 

the intimidation campaign that has been brought and which has 

highlighted on the disclosure of our donors to our (c)(4), the last 

round of ballot initiatives that were on the ballot last November, 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS
77 

the pro-traditional-marriage side was outspent by more than $20 

million, about four or five to one. 

I think the chilling effect that has come from the intimidation of 

donors to the cause of traditional marriage is pervasive and is having real consequences on the outcomes of elections on that key policy issue that is before the American people right now. 

Chairman CAMP. All right. Time has expired. 

Mr. Kind is recognized. 

Mr. KIND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I, too, want to thank our witnesses for your testimony here 

today. We do appreciate it. 

We have a problem on our hands, and hopefully this Committee 

will be able to move forward in a bipartisan fashion to fix it, and 

fix it as soon as possible. Because if there is any true rot at the 

core of our democracy, it is a pervasive feeling that you are being 

treated unfairly, you are being singled out, you are being discriminated against in some fashion. 

Listen, I am a former athlete myself, and I wasn’t the biggest fan 

of referees on the field, but I knew they played an important role 

in the game. You may not always agree with the call that they 

make, but they are an essential part. And I would hope that the 

answer is as simple as reforming a Tax Code that has become antiquated and too complex, that it just becomes a processing unit and 

nothing else. 

But even President Reagan believed in ‘‘trust but verify.’’ And 

let’s be honest, if we were all angels, we wouldn’t have a need for 

government in our lives. But we do need some verification. And 

there is some terminology here that I think the IRS is wrestling 

with. And I think there is an important role for this Congress and 

this Committee to help clarify as we move forward to ensure this 

never happens again. 

I mean, it is a clear difference between an organization that is 

primarily engaged in political activity or one that is primarily engaged in social welfare. And I think that is what the IRS is struggling with here. Because the Inspector General in his report was 

very clear that he found, based on his interviews and the preliminary investigation that took place, there was no partisan or political motivation behind what was going on. 

Now, there are reports that there were progressive groups that 

were singled out, as well. We were hoping to be able to call a witness on our side to be a part of this panel and ask them to testify. 

And we could have called someone from Progress Texas, Chicago 

News Cooperative, Clean Elections Texas, or, in addition, we might 

have called someone from Emerge America and its affiliates, who 

had their tax-exempt applications denied or their tax-exempt status 

revoked. 

In fact, a recent Tax Notes article looked through the 176 IRSapproved advocacy organizations approved through May 2013. They 

took a look at those that were approved. One hundred twenty-two 

of them were conservative organizations; 48 were nonconservative 

organizations. For six there wasn’t sufficient information to be able 

to determine between the two. 

But, nevertheless, I think each of you before us today has a legitimate cause of concern and complaint. And it is going to be our 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS
78 

obligation to do a better job of working with an IRS, who I also 

happen to believe is overburdened with a deluge of tax-exempt applications over the last couple of years. The Cincinnati office was 

a very small office of roughly nine people trying to process all of 

these applications. And I think the criteria that they used was 

clearly wrong, and we need to look into that, why it was used the 

way it was. But I think there is also a question of insufficient resources and insufficient staff to deal with the deluge of applications 

that did come in. 

Now, Ms. Kenney, let me ask you whether or not you think it 

would be appropriate for an organization that is primarily engaged 

in political activity to be able to qualify as a 501(c)(4) organization? 

Do you think that would be appropriate? 

Ms. KENNEY. I think that your question is hypothetical. I can 

only speak from my own experience. 

Mr. KIND. Well, it is not hypothetical to the IRS, because this 

is a determination they have to make. 

Ms. KENNEY. But you are asking me. 

Mr. KIND. Right. Well, let me ask you this—— 

Ms. KENNEY. And I can only—sir, I’m trying to—— 

Mr. KIND. Let me ask you, as a witness here today, do you in 

your mind have a clear definition of what is engagement in social 

welfare or what is engagement in political activity? Do you have a 

clear definition in your mind? 

Ms. KENNEY. I can only answer from my own experience since 

I am not a lawyer. My experience is we were obeying the law, and 

our personal group is about education about the political process. 

Mr. KIND. And I believe you believe that with all your heart. 

Ms. Belsom, let me ask you the same question. Do you have a 

clear definition in your mind—— 

Ms. BELSOM. Yes—— 

Mr. KIND [continuing]. For what is a political activity or what 

is a social welfare activity? 

Ms. BELSOM [continuing]. I would be glad to answer that. You 

know, I did a Google search of other 501(c)(4) organizations, and 

there were groups such as America Votes, Brady Campaign, California League of Conservation Voters, Citizens for Tax Justice, 

Democratic Leadership Council, Environment California, Gender 

Rights Maryland, Georgia Right to Life, Health Care for America 

Now, National Transgender—— 

Mr. KIND. But do you have a clear definition in your mind of 

what constitutes political activity or what constitutes a social welfare activity? 

Ms. BELSOM. Can you please define ‘‘political’’ for me? 

Mr. KIND. I am not doing this to single you out or to criticize 

you in any way—— 

Ms. BELSOM. Yes, I know. 

Mr. KIND [continuing]. But it highlights a point I am making, 

that the definition is very subjective. And when you have a subjective definition and are asking a Federal agency to apply their judgment, you are going to get subjective judgments from it. 

And that is why I think, Mr. Chairman, as we move forward, we 

need clear, bright-line rules of these activities, of what is allowed 

and what isn’t allowed. And when you don’t have that, you are 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS
79 

going to have instances like this on both sides, of groups being singled out for additional questions and additional scrutiny. And then 

the feeling of unfairness sets in. And—— 

Chairman CAMP. Okay. Time has expired. 

Mr. KIND [continuing]. At the core, that is really what we are 

wrestling with here. 

Chairman CAMP. Yes. I do want to note that the Minority was 

given the opportunity to call a witness but did not present a witness that had been affected by taxpayer activity—by IRS activity. 

So that is why there is no Minority witness at the table today. 

Mr. KIND. Thank you—— 

Chairman CAMP. They were given that opportunity. I just want 

to make sure the gentleman understood that. 

Mr. Schock is recognized. 

Mr. SCHOCK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you to the witnesses. 

Boy, the American people are being led to believe you guys are 

big muscles of political strength that are being subsidized by taxpayers and have some unfair advantage over, perhaps, those who 

share a different belief than you. 

So, for the record, perhaps these Tea Party groups might share. 

Ms. Belsom, Ms. Kenney, and Ms. Gerritson, could you tell us 

roughly what your annual budget is? 

Ms. BELSOM. Sure. Let’s see. In 2010, our budget was $2,453. 

Mr. SCHOCK. Your budget was $2,453 for the entire year. 

Ms. BELSOM. Yes. 

Mr. SCHOCK. Okay. 

Ms. BELSOM. In 2011, it was $3,371. 

Mr. EASTMAN. That is a 50 percent increase. 

Ms. BELSOM. And in 2012 we did get a grant from Tea Party 

Patriots that enabled us to promote our organization, so we did 

have approximately $9,000 that year. 

Mr. SCHOCK. Wow, $9,000. Okay. 

Ms. Kenney. 

Ms. KENNEY. Forgive me for laughing. Our annual budget is in 

the negative. 

Mr. SCHOCK. Uh-oh. Are you a Democratic organization? 

Ms. KENNEY. The first year, we had a minus $1,300. The second year, I don’t remember. That was from legal fees to actually 

begin the process of filing for a 501(c)(4) and other types of activities. 

Mr. SCHOCK. So, basically, the harassment and illegal questions 

that you were asked caused your organization to deficit-spend to 

try to defend its constitutional right and equal protection under the 

law? 

Ms. KENNEY. Yes, because it also dried up our ability to have 

people participate in a structure where they could donate. 

Mr. SCHOCK. Thank you. 

Ms. Gerritson, how about your budget? 

Ms. GERRITSON. Well, I don’t have the exact numbers, but I 

can tell you that we have less than $5,000 at the end of each 

month, roughly. One year, when we took a big bus trip to Washington, we had $18,000 at one time in the bank, but as soon as we 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS
80 

paid for the bus, that balance went down. But we usually run 

under $5,000. 

Mr. SCHOCK. So, roughly, you could say it has never been over $50,000. 

Ms. GERRITSON. Oh, goodness, no. 

Mr. SCHOCK. So you can understand the outrage by Members 

of this Committee for the apparent double standard that Members 

on this Committee seem to have for their frustration, outrage, opposition to groups who seek 501(c)(4) and 501(c)(3) status who may 

be on the opposite side of your issues and who we know have organized and raised far more sums than all of you collectively. 

One group in particular we know about is Organizing for Action, 

a group organized by the President’s own men, political advisers, 

which to date we know has raised in excess of millions of dollars. 

And I am just going to read on their website what they say their 

mission is: ‘‘Organizing for Action is a nonprofit organization established to support President Obama in achieving enactment of his 

national agenda.’’ 

Now, I would humbly ask my colleagues on the other side of the 

aisle, is that political? And why would an organization—— 

Mr. NEAL. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. SCHOCK [continuing]. Called Organizing for Action—— 

Mr. NEAL. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. SCHOCK. No, I will not. 

Mr. NEAL. What did you ask the question for, then? 

Mr. SCHOCK. Mr. Neal, go ahead. 

Chairman CAMP. The gentleman from Illinois has the time. 

Mr. SCHOCK. Go ahead. 

Mr. NEAL. Are those names disclosed? 

Mr. SCHOCK. Are what names disclosed? 

Mr. NEAL. The names of the President’s committee. Are the contributors disclosed? 

Mr. SCHOCK. I am not aware of whether they are or—— 

Mr. NEAL. Let me be on record as saying those names should 

be disclosed. 

Mr. SCHOCK. Okay. But we are not having a debate about 

whether or not we agree with Citizens United. We are not having 

a debate about whether or not we want to change 501(c)(3) or 

change 501(c)(4) processes. I would submit to you that if that is 

your goal, perhaps you should introduce legislation to do so. 

The problem is that this IRS agency has discriminated against 

people based on their political views. And for anyone—— 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. Order, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SCHOCK [continuing]. For anyone to defend—— 

Chairman CAMP. Regular order. 

Mr. SCHOCK [continuing]. This bureaucracy from discriminating 

against people—— 

Chairman CAMP. Will the gentleman suspend? 

I will have to ask our guests and the Committee to refrain from 

applause and other displays of emotion or attention. We need to 

keep decorum in the Committee. So I would respectfully ask that 

our Members refrain from clapping and cheering. 

Mr. SCHOCK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman CAMP. You may proceed. 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS
81 

Mr. SCHOCK. For anyone to suggest that these individuals’ 

rights should be limited more so than others’ simply because of 

their political beliefs is nothing more than discrimination. There 

would be clarity if this was an issue of white versus black, of Jews 

versus Christians. But because it is conservative versus liberal, 

there seems to be some question, some cloud, some lack of clarity. 

And rather than work united in a bipartisan way to rout out the 

very cancer that my colleague, Mr. Rangel, described, we are simply trying to chop off the head of the patient, remove the Acting 

Commissioner, and say all is well. We need to get to the bottom 

of this, we need to identify the cancer, and this needs to be removed from this organization. 

I yield back. 

Chairman CAMP. Mr. Paulsen is recognized. 

Mr. PAULSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, also for holding this 

hearing. 

And I just really want to thank all of you for taking the time to 

testify. It is really a tragedy that you have to be here today. I want 

to commend you for being here today. You shouldn’t have to be 

here, no citizen should have to be here defending their constitutional rights. And, obviously, you have shared the stories about 

how your rights have been violated. 

And so I just think you are brave. I mean, you are brave for 

being here. Listening to the emotion in your testimony is very real, 

not just because you are nervous about testifying in front of a congressional committee, I imagine, but probably in the back of your 

mind you probably can’t help but be a little bit angry or even fearful about sticking your neck out a little bit more and being a target, having a larger target on your back, potentially. 

This is not a mistake by the IRS, as some have mentioned today. 

This is not poor customer service, as the Acting Commissioner Miller testified just a few weeks ago. This abuse was systemic. And 

it has been going on for years. And we know it is systemic because 

of the number of groups that were targeted. We know it is systemic 

because of the number of individuals that are involved—IRS workers that have been named as a part of your testimony that we will 

also be able to further interview and get information from. And the 

larger question now is, who helped direct this activity? And Lois 

Lerner is obviously refusing to even answer questions. 

Mr. Kookogey, if I could just ask—— 

Mr. KOOKOGEY. Kookogey. 

Mr. PAULSEN. Kookogey. I apologize. If I could just ask you a 

question, because you testified that, back in December of 2011, you 

had made numerous and repeated calls to the IRS which went 

unreturned, and then finally you did reach an agent. I think you 

said it was Ron Bell. 

Mr. KOOKOGEY. Yes. 

Mr. PAULSEN. You reached that agent in Cincinnati. You inquired of him about why the application was taking so long. And 

he said he had been waiting for guidance from his superiors. 

Mr. KOOKOGEY. From his superiors. 

Mr. PAULSEN. Can you just comment? I mean, who do you 

think his superiors would have been? You mentioned it wasn’t 

someone just down the hall. That is sort of the feeling you got. 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS
82 

Mr. KOOKOGEY. Yes, although he didn’t indicate exactly where 

it was. And I believe—am I correct that these IRS calls are recorded? So we could probably find out if he did, indeed, specify. At 

least, that is what I remember. Every time I called the IRS, it said, 

‘‘These calls may be recorded.’’ So I think my conversation with Mr. 

Bell may, indeed, be recorded. 

But what I remember him saying was, we have been waiting on 

guidance from our superiors as to your organization and similar organizations. He did not say where it was coming from, but it was 

clearly implicit that it wasn’t down the hall. Whether it was from 

Washington or some other office, he had been waiting a long time. 

It wasn’t just a matter of putting me on hold and going to talk to 

someone else. 

Mr. PAULSEN. Right. 

And, Ms. Martinek, I believe you made some comment about conversations with IRS workers who were working with some of their 

superiors, as well? 

Ms. MARTINEK. That is correct. Ms. Richards did tell me on at 

least two different occasions that she would have to put me on hold 

and she would check with her superior, or superiors, to answer the 

question that I was asking her. 

Mr. PAULSEN. Well, your testimony is going to help us get 

down to the facts so we can actually figure out who was directing 

this targeting. 

Ms. Belsom, I was going to ask you a question, because we did 

hear from the Inspector General as a part of the audit in March 

of 2010. That is apparently when the targeting actually started and 

went forward. But we were told by the Acting Commissioner, Acting Commissioner Miller, that all of that targeting activity stopped 

in June of 2012. 

Have you continued to receive any correspondence from the IRS 

regarding the status of your application—— 

Ms. BELSOM. No. 

Mr. PAULSEN [continuing]. Since June of 2012? 

Ms. BELSOM. Yeah, I mean, I didn’t get the letter—I mean, I 

heard nothing, basically, until September of 2012 when we got the 

letter with the whole list of questions. 

Mr. PAULSEN. After June of 2012, you have continued to receive information—— 

Ms. BELSOM. Right. 

Mr. PAULSEN [continuing]. From the IRS regarding the status. 

Ms. BELSOM. Right. 

Mr. PAULSEN. Well, Mr. Chairman, the other issue I think that 

we will continue to have questions about is the whole concept of 

donors, because we have just scratched the surface, I think. And 

Dr. Eastman has testified, but I had a conversation with a donor 

in my State who has been a contributor to certain political causes 

and has been fearful of stepping out and voicing his concern about 

some of these activities, but now he is being more emboldened. And 

I am thinking we are going to hear from some more donors down 

the road, Mr. Chairman, as this investigation continues. 

And I yield back. 

Chairman CAMP. Mr. Pascrell. 

Mr. PASCRELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS
83 

Thank you, Mr. Levin. 

I think it is critical that this Committee continue its investigation into what we all agree—let’s make that clear. There are those 

on the panel here, apparently—not the panel, excuse me; thank 

you, panelists—but on our side of the room that have tried to divide—some of us have tried to divide us into, ‘‘Those folks don’t 

really want to clean up the IRS like we folks do.’’ And that is a 

typical propaganda game, and I understand it. 

I want to stress your attempt at bipartisanship, Mr. Chairman. 

I think Democrats and Republicans both recognize that the IRS 

flagging applications is wrong. And we have a shared interest in 

working with you in a bipartisan way to find out what really happened and to fix it. 

I mean, if we are the problem, if we hadn’t clarified what the 

tests should be for these organizations, it is not the organizations, 

it is we that are at fault, and we need to change the test to see 

if that organization qualifies. But you ask everybody; you don’t ask 

a few. So we agree on that. 

We don’t need unsubstantiated, politically motivated, and irresponsible accusations against one another. We have to look at 

where the facts are. No one has a God-given right to a tax-exempt 

status. And none of the panelists said that they—that was contrary 

to that. 

The laws governing tax-exempt organizations and 501(c)(4)s were 

created by Congress. It is us. If we have been derelict, then we 

have to change what the laws are, period. And for us not to change 

the law would mean that this could happen with facility down the 

road to all kinds of issues and all kinds of groups advocating those 

issues. 

So I think we need to focus on writing clear rules. And should 

it be a test based on how much money you spend? Should it be 

time-based? After this debacle, we can’t afford not to be specific. 

So I have some questions for the witnesses. 

Mr. Eastman, Chairman of the National Organization for Marriage, I believe, correct, sir? 

Mr. EASTMAN. Yes. 

Mr. PASCRELL. Why did your organization not choose to become—and you don’t have to answer this, but I am curious. Why 

did you choose not to become a 527 organization under the tax 

laws? 

Mr. EASTMAN. Because that is not what we do under our organization. When we get particularly involved in political campaigns 

or those that support our cause, we set up political action committees, as is required by the law, and pursue that route. When we 

are pursuing purely educational functions, we use that through our 

nonprofit educational foundation, a 501(c)(3). And for the activities 

that the Tax Code sets out as compliant with 501(c)(4), we operate 

those activities under the 501(c)(4) organization. 

Mr. PASCRELL. You and I both realize that if you are a 527, if 

you declare that, if you apply for that, that means your donors 

have to be what? 

Mr. EASTMAN. As is, a political action committee, and—— 

Mr. PASCRELL. Right. 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS
84 

Mr. EASTMAN [continuing]. We do disclose those donors. For 

nonpolitical activity that we engage in from NOM itself, we follow 

the same rules that everybody else follows. 

Mr. PASCRELL. And so your organization chose to become a 

501(c)(4). 

Mr. EASTMAN. This particular one did. That is right. 

Mr. PASCRELL. That organization has, like all other organizations in that particular category, a test to go through. In other 

words, when you make an application, you have to comply with 

what are some stupid questions; we would both agree to that. But, 

in the final analysis, that is information given to the IRS to determine whether you are eligible for that exemption. Is—— 

Mr. EASTMAN. That is correct. 

Mr. PASCRELL [continuing]. That correct, sir? 

Mr. EASTMAN. Yes. 

Mr. PASCRELL. Now, some of the questions are going to go to 

that thin line we talked about before, and that is, what is political 

and what is not political? And many times that is a tough question, 

isn’t it? 

Mr. EASTMAN. Well, the law oftentimes is clear. And there is 

no contention that has ever been made that our activities under 

the 501(c)(4) are not appropriate for a 501(c)(4). We have our 

501(c)(4) status—— 

Mr. PASCRELL. Well, you are an issue-oriented organization. 

You have every right to profess what you believe in. 

Mr. EASTMAN. That is right, and to have our donors’ confidentiality protected, as the law provides—— 

Mr. PASCRELL. But isn’t there a question, when it gets down 

to it—and we agree so far—when you are going to express that 

issue, in what you believe in, and doing something overtly to demonstrate where you feel you are right and where this other organization, whatever it may be, is wrong? Doesn’t it get to be a question of, is this political or not? I mean, your politics are different 

than my politics, and what is political to you may not be political 

to me. That is a tough question. 

Mr. EASTMAN. I don’t think—— 

Chairman CAMP. If you could answer briefly because time has 

expired. 

Mr. EASTMAN. I don’t think it is tough at all, that when we engage in the very same activity that the Human Rights Campaign 

engages in—— 

Mr. PASCRELL. I’m not defending—excuse me, sir. 

Mr. EASTMAN [continuing]. That our donors are disclosed and 

theirs are not. It is a felony, what happened to us. No such felony 

occurred against them. And it is not being prosecuted. 

Mr. PASCRELL. But, Mr. Eastman—— 

Chairman CAMP. Thank you. Time has expired. 

Mr. PASCRELL [continuing]. No one has inferred—— 

Chairman CAMP. Mr. Pascrell. 

And now we will recognize Mr. Marchant for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MARCHANT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I have a letter today that I would like to put in the record from 

the Northeast Tarrant Tea Party. Their treasurer is a gentleman 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS
85 

that has been a CPA for 40 years, and his primary practice was 

in helping tax-exempt organizations receive their 501(c)(3) or (4). 

Chairman CAMP. Okay. Without objection. 

[The submission of The Honorable Kenny Marchant follows:] 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS
86 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21123A.030
87 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21123A.031
88 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21123A.032
89 

f 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21123A.033
90 

Mr. MARCHANT. He states in his testimony, which I have here, 

that he was subjected exactly to the same scrutiny that Ms. Belsom 

was, Ms. Gerritson, and Ms. Kenney. 

After 15 months, he received a questionnaire that had 110 questions on it. He states that unequivocally this was the most complicated questionnaire he had ever received in response and very 

quickly ascertained that this organization was being targeted specifically because of their beliefs. 

They were asked questions about True the Vote. They were 

asked questions about their affiliation with training sessions. They 

were asked for lists of names. All of you have received very, very 

similar questions. So it is happening to all of us in all of our districts. 

A year ago about this time, I wrote a letter to the Acting Commissioner asking if this was actually going on. He wrote a letter 

back and said it was not. And then Mr. Joseph Grant wrote a letter 

back and said this was not going on. Just as recently as a few 

weeks ago, we questioned the Acting Commissioner, who still said 

that this was not going on. When we finally pinned him down on 

the questions, he basically said, well, it actually was going on, but 

you didn’t ask the question the right way. And, basically, they had 

lawyered up. 

So, since then, I would like to walk you through a little bit of 

what has happened. And it has happened as a result of the fact 

that across the Nation each one of you and each one of the groups 

in all of our districts have contacted their Congressman, and this 

Committee has began a year ago to act on this, on this suspicion. 

And what this Committee has been subjected to is really a conspiracy of arrogance. When this Committee swears in witnesses, we 

expect them to tell the truth. And when you write a letter to the 

IRS Commissioner and he writes you a letter back and says it is 

not happening, you have to operate on some premise of truth. And 

this Committee has been subjected to untrue statements, and they 

have been put in writing. 

Commissioner Shulman, retired and resigned. Acting Commissioner Miller, fired, then retired or resigned. Joseph Grant, resigned. Lois Lerner, she has taken the Fifth Amendment, and is 

now on administrative leave. And just yesterday, newly named 

Commissioner, not yet confirmed, Werfel, his most common answer 

to the Committee yesterday was he did not know, he was not 

aware, and he would have to get back to them. Now, this Committee has heard a lot of that, especially from Ms. Lerner, in the 

last year. 

The question I would like to ask each of you is, what do you 

think the IRS Commissioner should do once this Committee is successful in exposing everyone at the IRS that orchestrated this policy? 

Mr. Kookogey. 

Mr. KOOKOGEY. I think it is conjecture—I don’t think it is appropriate for me to determine what the IRS Commissioner should 

do. I can only speak for what I would like to see done with regard 

to the whole matter, and that is to get to the truth, and if there 

is criminal activity, that we have the moral courage to pursue it 

and not merely to politicize it and have them say, okay, we will 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS
91 

just apologize. Because we, as taxpayers, if we fail to pay our taxes, 

we get criminal penalties. And so it is not acceptable for the IRS 

to just say, oh, I am sorry. 

Ms. BELSOM. I feel like—— 

Chairman CAMP. I am going to have to ask everyone to answer 

very briefly because we are out of time. 

Ms. BELSOM. Okay. 

I would like to see a huge transformation of the whole way taxes 

are done. 

And as far as, you know, I feel like, as a person concerned in my 

community, if I want to start an organization and work to educate 

citizens and have candidates in to speak and vet candidates, that 

sort of thing, I shouldn’t need to have to worry about paying any 

taxes on money collected from dues. We are not funding any political candidates. 

And I just think—I don’t want to be involved with the IRS. The 

IRS is a nightmare. And I would like something done to reduce the 

average citizen’s aggravation in having to deal with the IRS. We 

need to get rid of the tax system that we have and go to something 

much simpler, like a fair tax. 

Chairman CAMP. All right. 

Briefly. 

Mr. EASTMAN. In addition to the felony charges on our particular issue, I think you need to hold individuals responsible and 

with civil liability to the taxpayers whose disclosures were done so 

that they can pursue it even if the Department of Justice won’t. 

Ms. KENNEY. The answer is the rule of law must be followed. 

And if it is violated, it must be remedied, either civilly or criminally or both. Thank you. 

Chairman CAMP. Thank you. 

Ms. MARTINEK. The IRS needs to uniformly process their applications without offending any of the First Amendment rights. 

Chairman CAMP. All right. 

Ms. GERRITSON. I will make it easy and ditto what Mr. 

Kookogey said. But just firing a few people will not fix the problem. 

Just like Mr. Rangel said, it is a cancer inside the agency, and it 

has to be routed out from the bottom up. 

Chairman CAMP. All right. Thank you. 

Ms. Black is recognized. 

Ms. BLACK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank all of you for being here today. 

Mr. Kookogey, thank you for representing Tennessee. But we 

know that we have other groups there, such as the Chattanooga 

Tea Party and the Roane County Tea Party, that could likewise 

give similar testimony. 

So we really appreciate you all being here today. 

I think prior to the exposure of what has just most recently happened in the IRS, if we were to ask the American people about 

their impression of the IRS, I think we would hear the words 

‘‘fear,’’ ‘‘powerlessness,’’ ‘‘intimidation,’’ maybe ‘‘distrust.’’ And those 

are words that would have been used prior to this, but I think 

what has now happened has confirmed that. 

And it certainly is a sad day for our country, where our Founding 

Fathers set up those Bill of Rights to ensure us that we wouldn’t 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS
92 

have a government that would intimidate the very citizens of the 

country. And so it is a really, really sad time that we have come 

to this point where we have actually confirmed what many people 

would have said prior to this. 

If I could ask the staff to bring up one of the pieces of information that is in our files here. 

Mr. Kookogey, I bring this up because this comes as a result of 

a question that was asked of you. And this is question number 24 

on your questionnaire, where they actually ask you the names of 

those students that you would be educating. 

Can you give me any thought of why this would be of particular 

interest in order to establish your 501(c)(4) status? 

Mr. KOOKOGEY. No, not—it is stunning. It is unbelievable. I 

can’t give an answer. I have been thinking about it for 29 months, 

as to why they would want to know the names of 7th-graders that 

I am teaching Western civilization, political philosophy, and the 

basic theories of economics. Why in the world would the IRS want 

to know the names of these students, but for perhaps intimidation 

of them and their parents, to discourage them from being taught 

under my tutelage. 

Ms. BLACK. It is certainly very chilling, something we wouldn’t 

expect here in the United States. We would be looking at some 

communistic countries if we were to think about this kind of activity. 

One of my colleagues said that none of you were silenced. And 

what I would like to know—and maybe we can start over here with 

you, Ms. Gerritson—do you feel that what was occurring here in 

both the intimidation and not getting the status, did it silence you? 

Ms. GERRITSON. Well, obviously, I am here, so, no, it didn’t silence me. 

Ms. BLACK. I mean, your group, did the intimidation and not 

getting the status silence you in being able to do what your group 

was intended to do? 

Ms. GERRITSON. Oh, I was going to say I do have members 

that have come up to me and that are fearful. They don’t want to 

write their name on any sign-up form that we may have. I also 

have people emailing me that they are getting audited for the first 

time ever, and they gave during the campaign. So I can’t put a 

number on how it has hindered our organization, but it has because people have told me it has. 

Ms. BLACK. Ms. Martinek. 

Ms. MARTINEK. We have not been silenced, but if we didn’t 

have accessibility to the Thomas More Society and attorneys, we 

may have been. 

Ms. BLACK. So you had some folks there to help you out. 

Ms. GERRITSON. And I would agree, had we not had the ACLJ, 

we couldn’t have fought the government. 

Ms. BLACK. Thank you. 

Ms. Kenney. 

Ms. KENNEY. We are not silenced, but there is a fist and a hand 

over our mouth because our educational opportunities to everything 

from creating brochures or pamphlets on the Constitution to buying 

such things as bookmarks that educate people about the Constitution, that has been limited, to the postcards on getting voter inforVerDate Sep 11 2014 06:57 Jan 26, 2017 Jkt 021123 PO 00000 Frm 00096 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 I:\WAYS\WAYSPS\21123\21123.XXX 21123

dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS
93 

mation, that has been constricted because we simply don’t have the 

funds. 

Ms. BLACK. Thank you. 

Mr. Eastman. 

Mr. EASTMAN. You know, my nature is not to be silenced by 

anything, but the number one comment I get every time we do 

something like this is, ‘‘Thank you for standing up for us; you must 

be very brave.’’ And I don’t think it is brave; I think it is citizenship duty that we stand up every chance we get. 

Ms. BLACK. Ms. Belsom. 

Ms. BELSOM. I feel like if we don’t speak up now, that time may 

be lost. So I am doing my best to speak up. But without the ACLJ 

and the knowledge of the other groups being targeted, I really am 

not sure what would have happened. There was a time when I was 

just ready to say, ‘‘Forget this whole thing.’’ It is very chilling, and 

I just think that—— 

Ms. BLACK. My time is running out. The point that I want to 

make here, because I know that it is going to come really quickly, 

is that your First Amendment rights are being violated here. 

Mr. Kookogey, do you want to just, for the rest of the time I have 

left—— 

Mr. KOOKOGEY. Yes. Whether or not it is chilling, I think was 

even evidenced today, because some of the Democrats on this Committee actually implied that what is social welfare to them is social 

welfare. But what might be social welfare to us is somehow negotiable. 

Ms. BLACK. Thank you. I yield back. 

Chairman CAMP. Thank you. 

Mr. Young is recognized. 

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Since the issue of groups being targeted by the IRS has come to 

light, I am continually encouraged—everyone I speak to—to let the 

facts lead us to wherever they may. 

We don’t want to draw premature conclusions. Follow the facts. 

The more facts we have learned, including in this hearing, the 

more concerned I get that there is some organized effort to stifle 

conservative political activity. 

Given the pattern of intimidation and obstruction we have seen 

from the IRS, I at least understand why some are ready to jump 

to firm conclusions. But perhaps what is most frustrating to me is 

we still need so many answers, answers that we are not getting 

from some of the higher ups and from others that represent us in 

our Federal Government. 

While we wait for those answers, far too many Members of Congress in polemicists masquerading as journalists suddenly downplay the gravity of this situation. We hear that time and again. 

And then they draw conclusions of their own. 

These are conclusions, incidentally, that don’t seem to jive with 

the facts that we already know. We have heard, for instance, that 

the real problem is groups applying for tax-exempt status that engage in political activity. The problem is the groups. 

But groups of every political persuasion do this; they apply for 

this tax-exempt status. So why is it that every Tea Party group 

that applied for 501(c)(4) status was targeted? Why did an approval 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS
94 

subsequently take years longer than many of their progressive 

counterparts? I want to know. The people want to know. Why were 

pro-life groups and groups in support of traditional marriage targeted but not pro-abortion and marriage equality groups treated 

similarly? 

It has been more than suggested—suggested here in this hearing—that this is really about Citizens United and about 501(c)(4) 

groups and their undisclosed donor lists. I think some of my colleagues have helped disabuse us of that notion. But I want to know 

why were groups filing for 501(c)(3) status, like some of those here 

today, asked inappropriate questions like the content of their prayers? Why were 501(c)(3) applicants left in limbo if this is about the 

abuse of 501(c)(4) status? 

Lastly, we have heard that this is about organizations trying to 

game the system. But if it is about organizations, why was the IRS 

so concerned about individual donors to these organizations? Why 

in the months prior to a major Federal election did donor information for conservative groups and candidates get illegally released by 

the IRS? We want to know the answer to that question. Why did 

donors to conservative candidates get targeted with threatening 

communications trying to suppress their political donations? All of 

this is extremely troubling and, of course, we need more answers. 

Sadly, those who can tell us the most would rather plead the 

Fifth Amendment than help us get to the bottom of these things. 

This must never, ever happen again. We need to ensure that safeguards are in place, as others on both sides of the aisle have said, 

so that our executive branch cannot nurture or give license to a 

culture or a subculture of intimidation within our Federal agencies. 

And, finally, we need to punish those who violated our trust. You 

know, I am looking forward to that day when we do prosecute, Dr. 

Eastman, those who are responsible for acts that may well need to 

be prosecuted as more facts come in. You indicate that you already 

have those facts on hand. Let’s hope that those facts are presented 

before a court of law and that proper action is taken. 

We have an Indiana Tea Party group that waited for a number 

of years for their 501(c)(4) application to be approved. They decided 

not to answer the IRS’ inappropriate questions. They finally received a denial of their 501(c)(4) status. However, just a few days 

later, after being denied, they were approved. Curious behavior. I 

want to know if any of your groups had a similar situation, where 

you were approved just days after being denied. 

Mr. KOOKOGEY. No. I am actually still waiting for status after 

29 months. 

Ms. BELSOM. I am still waiting after almost 3 years. 

Mr. EASTMAN. We were approved prior to 2008. 

Ms. KENNEY. I withdrew my application. 

Ms. MARTINEK. We were approved 1 week after the request for 

a letter was given to us. Once our attorney sent in her letter, I 

guess it was 1 week after that that we actually were approved. So 

they didn’t actually deny us, but they acted very quickly once we 

had legal help pointing out their request being illegal. 

Mr. YOUNG. Ms. Gerritson. 

Ms. GERRITSON. No. It was 600 and something days, but we finally were approved. We were never denied. 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS
95 

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you. I yield back. 

Chairman CAMP. Thank you. 

Mr. Kelly is recognized. 

Mr. KELLY. Thank you, Chairman. And I thank you all for being 

here. 

I went through a similar situation. I was an automobile dealer. 

My dad started the business in 1953 after coming back from the 

war—a little one-car showroom, but four service bays, so you can 

imagine my shock in 2009 when all of a sudden, one of my franchises was being taken away—not because I didn’t know how to 

run it, not because we didn’t meet the metrics it requires, because 

the government made a decision, you know what, Kelly, you are no 

longer going to be in business. So I went through a process and got 

the dealership back. 

But there is something wrong here. There is something wrong. 

This is truly a David v. Goliath. I think it is Edmund Burke that 

said that all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good 

men to do nothing. 

I thank you for coming here today. And I hope by your appearing 

here today that you have encouraged other people throughout the 

country to come forward, that you do not have to be afraid of this 

government. The fear only exists if you allow it to continue. Don’t 

let that happen to you. 

I traveled through the district last week. I can’t tell you the 

number of people that came up to me and said, you know what, I 

would like to say something, but if you use my name, I am afraid 

they are going to come after me. My God, is that what we have 

come to? 

I was in a Decoration Day—I call it Decoration Day. I know it 

is Memorial Day now, but I call it Decoration Day because it is 

about decorating the graves of our veterans, our war dead. A guy 

by the name of Bill Kumpf came up to me afterwards, and he said, 

‘‘Mr. Kelly, can I talk to you?’’ I said, ‘‘Sure, Mr. Kumpf, what is 

it?’’ He said, ‘‘You know, we were denied our status. Now, here is 

the problem with this.’’ I said, ‘‘Really, what happened?’’ Well, some 

kind of certification was the problem. But here is his fear: He goes, 

‘‘But I am wondering now if it is because this Penn Township Veterans Association is made up mostly of Republicans, that maybe we 

are targeted?’’ Now, think about that. We have talked about 

chilling. This is not chilling. The American people are frozen with 

fear. We have gone far beyond being chilling. We have exceeded; 

we have gone way over what this government is supposed to be 

able to do. And I have to tell you, when I talk to you all and see 

you here and understand what it is you are going through, you 

don’t have big budgets to work with. Somebody was talking about 

the stall tactic. That can keep you on the sidelines forever. 

Mr. Kookogey, what kind of legal fees have you built up? 

Mr. KOOKOGEY. I have my own legal fees because I am an attorney, so I have done everything quid pro quo. I have done it all 

on my own. And the ACLJ represents us obviously as a nonprofit. 

But that does not mean I don’t have countless other expenses. I 

have been funding, by loans to an organization that I assumed one 

day would be granted tax-exempt status, countless—I mean, 

$30,000, $40,000, $50,000 of my own money, just trying to wait 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS
96 

for this day, this inevitable day, that the IRS would grant me taxexempt status. 

Mr. KELLY. You would get your day in court. 

Ms. Belsom, you have built up some costs? 

Ms. BELSOM. The ACLJ is representing us for free. 

Mr. KELLY. Okay. Dr. Eastman. 

Mr. EASTMAN. Hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees 

we have incurred trying to protect our donors and fight the nonsense that has been going on against us. 

Ms. KENNEY. Meeting costs, legal costs, yes, and other things 

to run our group, such as speakers’ fees, money to get the good 

trainers out and the good organizational people and spokespeople 

out, yes. 

Mr. KELLY. Ms. Martinek. 

Ms. MARTINEK. The Thomas More Society has taken the responsibility of our financial expenses. 

Ms. GERRITSON. And the ACLJ is representing us, so we 

haven’t had to pay our own costs. 

Mr. KELLY. Isn’t it incredible what you are going through to 

maintain your First Amendment rights? And I will just tell you, 

this is not a problem that is in Cincinnati. This is a problem that 

is deep in the bowels of this government. And if there is some point 

that we cannot stop this culture of fear, this government-sponsored 

fear, then we are really coming up short on what the oath is that 

we took. And we didn’t take it for the Republican Party. I am so 

sick of hearing about, oh, it is about Republicans or Democrats. 

This is about America. This is basically who we are. We took an 

oath of office not to defend the rights of Republicans or Democrats 

or Libertarians, or those that just want to live here and just be left 

alone; we took an oath to defend our Constitution. 

So I really applaud you for what you are doing today. Do not give 

up on this because I think the idea of if you can stall them long 

enough, if you can drive their costs high enough—it cost me 

$60,000, by the way, in legal fees to get my dealership back. And 

I was told by a Member of this Congress, ‘‘Well, the system allowed 

you to get it back.’’ I said, ‘‘Oh, my goodness. So I was able to get 

back what the government stole from me; isn’t that a novel idea?’’ 

So thank you for what you are doing. Stay the course. Do not 

give up. And please, spread the word to the rest of the American 

public: Do not be afraid of this government. It is only when we fear 

the government that we lose. This is a government that is supposed to serve the people; the people are not supposed to serve it. 

So keep up the fight. We are with you, and we have your back. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman CAMP. All right. Thank you. 

Mr. Griffin is recognized. 

Mr. GRIFFIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you all so much for being here today. It reminds me of 

the somewhat famous quote that a government big enough to give 

you everything you need is powerful enough to take everything you 

have. That sort of goes to your quote earlier when you were talking 

about the government culture that we are dealing with here. 

I think what we have seen described here and in the previous 

hearing is a distant, ever-growing, almost unlimited Federal GovVerDate Sep 11 2014 06:57 Jan 26, 2017 Jkt 021123 PO 00000 Frm 00100 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 I:\WAYS\WAYSPS\21123\21123.XXX 21123

dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS
97 

ernment that, in many instances, means well, but is unresponsive 

to people that live thousands of miles away. And the bigger it 

grows, the less accountable it is. And I think this is another example of that. 

I want to clarify a couple of things. There have been a lot of facts 

thrown around, and there are a lot of myths as well. First of all, 

there was no surge in 501(c)(4) applications in 2010. We have 

heard—I know some people get talking points, and they read them, 

and they don’t really know what they mean. But the Washington 

Post and the Atlantic and many others have reported there was no 

surge in 501(c)(4) applications in 2010. It just didn’t happen. 

And we are not just talking about (c)(4)s, as Mr. Young pointed 

out, we are talking about (c)(3)s. I am holding a lawsuit that relates to Z Street. They are trying to get organized. They are a proIsrael group. And I have the questionnaire that they were sent. 

The IRS—they were just trying to get 501(c)(3) status, okay, not 

(c)(4). The question: Does your organization support the existence 

of the land of Israel? Describe your organization’s religious belief 

system toward the land of Israel. 

It is unbelievable. And you know what is interesting, it is pointed 

out here that in the New York Times, a senior State Department 

official was talking about some of the charitable groups active in 

the Middle East, and he said that the funding for these groups is 

a problem because it is unhelpful to the efforts we are trying to 

make. Is there a connection? I don’t know. But it is outrageous that 

they would ask these sorts of things of groups. 

You know, you heard some other Members quote the investigation of the Inspector General. I would point out, as some others 

have, it was an audit. There were no emails requested, no depositions. It just scratched the surface. And a lot of people love to cite 

it. Well, they didn’t cite the fact that it said that conservative 

groups were targeted. That is why you are here. It is not a debate 

over the law. It is the fact that some groups were given a pass, and 

some groups weren’t. That is what this is all about. Despite the 

fact that some people say, oh, it is about terminology, or we haven’t 

given them the right terms. Do you really need training to know 

that you don’t ask Americans what they are praying about? I mean, 

seriously, do you really need training to know that you don’t approach a group and try to get a deal that they won’t protest 

Planned Parenthood? It is unbelievable. If you have to write that 

type of stuff in the statute, then we are just out of luck, folks. That 

is just common sense. 

You know, I think this is another great argument for tax reform. 

If you want to reduce the abuse and the power of the IRS, we need 

to reduce the complexity of the Tax Code that they enforce every 

day. 

I would just say, in closing, that I would encourage you to explore all of your options against this government. I would encourage you to look at 42 USC 1983, which allows you to sue when your 

rights have been violated, particularly your First Amendment 

rights. I would just encourage you—obviously, you have your own 

lawyers. But when citizens are treated the way you have been, I 

think you ought to use every tool that you can to hold this government accountable. We are going to do our job here. But this is a 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS
98 

Federal Government that agency after agency after agency is out 

of control. And I appreciate your being brave and being here today. 

Thank you. 

Chairman CAMP. Thank you. 

Mr. Renacci. 

Mr. RENACCI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I wanted to get back and make sure that I thanked every one 

of you for being here. 

Again, I practiced in the business world for almost 30 years before I came here—I have only been here for 2 years—and I also had 

a CPA profession. So I had to sit in front of those IRS agents with 

clients, or I had to get the letter from that individual that you all 

received from the IRS. And I have to tell you, it is appalling, not 

only what I heard in some of your testimony and what the IRS did, 

but I have to tell you, they don’t treat—I mean, I sat in many, 

many situations with the IRS, and they never seemed to care. I 

mean, their timelines, it is amazing how long they made you all 

wait. It is just appalling that this government allows that to happen. 

One thing that is kind of interesting for me as a business guy, 

when I took over a bad business, it would have been the easiest 

thing in the world for me to blame the guy who appointed the manager of the company before I took it over. Quite frankly, we had 

to fix the problem and move forward. So when I hear people say, 

well, this was a Bush appointee, or whatever, I always say, isn’t 

it amazing? I mean, we should be actually talking about how we 

fix the problems, whoever is there. And as leaders, we should be 

taking responsibility to make sure those problems are fixed. 

Now, I have to tell you, we had testimony 2 weeks ago from Acting Commissioner Miller. He seemed more interested in providing 

excuses. I heard him, I don’t know how many times, say, ‘‘I don’t 

know’’—and we continue to hear that out of the agency. Can you 

imagine if you would have answered your questions, ‘‘I don’t know,’’ 

what would have happened to you? I mean, I know. I mean, you 

wouldn’t have gotten—of course, you didn’t get very far that quick 

with answering properly. But I don’t know whether they would 

have just thrown your application away. But yet we have the Acting Commissioner in here 2 weeks ago answering I don’t know. 

And he gave half-hearted apologies. 

But I found it appalling and was disturbed with many of his responses. And I would wonder, as victims of many of these actions— 

and I would consider them illegal—do you believe these actions by 

the IRS to you were illegal? And I would like to just hear each one 

of your thoughts. And I know ‘‘illegal’’ is a strong word, but I would 

like to hear what your thoughts are. 

Mr. KOOKOGEY. Oh, it is absolutely illegal. When the government uses the IRS for political purposes—remember, this was part 

of the Articles of Impeachment in the Nixon Administration before 

he resigned—it is a serious matter. And it is clearly illegal to single 

us out for disparate treatment based on our political views. 

Ms. BELSOM. Yes, I agree with what he said. 

Mr. EASTMAN. Chapter and verse 26 USC section 7213(a)(1) 

makes it a felony to disclose confidential tax returns. 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS
99 

Ms. KENNEY. I agree with everyone here. It was illegal. I think 

it was immoral. I think it was also very un-American. 

Ms. MARTINEK. It is easy for me. Our attorney, Sally Wagonmaker, said yes, it is very illegal, so—— 

Ms. GERRITSON. I agree. 

Mr. RENACCI. Thank you. I will tell you this; one thing they 

will say about me if you go back over my record, I was a fighter, 

and I believed in fighting with my clients. So I appreciate you 

being here. I appreciate you fighting. Don’t ever quit. And if you 

ever need someone to stand beside you, give me a call. I appreciate 

it. 

I yield back. 

Chairman CAMP. Thank you. 

And last, but not least, Mr. Reed. 

Mr. REED. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you to the panelists. We are coming to the end here, and 

I just wanted to express my sincere thoughts that we stand with 

you. 

I have heard a bunch of my colleagues talk about how certain individuals in Washington have been fired as a result of this. But 

let’s just be clear. Mr. Miller sat right where you were, Mr. Eastman, and when I asked him a question, he had not been fired; he 

had been allowed to retire with full benefits and was drawing a 

paycheck, paid for by the American taxpayer, as he tried to answer 

my questions—and I say ‘‘tried’’ because he wouldn’t answer my 

questions—that frustrates me, just as I am sure it frustrates you. 

Then we hear that Lois Lerner, who has taken the Fifth, is now 

allowed to go on vacation—I will call it. That is accountability in 

Washington, D.C. That, to me, is unacceptable. 

What I wanted to leave you with today—and Ms. Gerritson, you 

said it in your statement, and I appreciate the heartfelt nature of 

your statement—is that a lot of people in Washington forget who 

they work for. They work for you, not the other way around. That 

is the culture of abuse of power that I see in the IRS. 

I want to hear from you how that makes you feel, the fact that 

there really hasn’t been any accountability as of yet. And what 

would you ask us—me specifically, as a Member of this panel—to 

do, to make you feel that justice has been served? 

Ms. GERRITSON. Well, I think it will take a lot for the American people to ever trust the IRS just because of the nature of the 

agency. The IRS has always been a scary agency. But what I would 

ask is, like so many of you have already committed, to do a full investigation, follow through on every lead. Don’t stop until you get 

to the bottom of this. We need to rid this cancer. So just do what 

it is that you need to do, and we will be here to hold you accountable to do that. 

Mr. REED. Well, I appreciate that because if we don’t do that, 

one of the things I am concerned about with my colleagues on the 

other side of the aisle, if we don’t get to the bottom of it, you have 

already heard—I listened to the testimony of each and every one 

of you. We have already heard the chilling effect of what the IRS 

has done. You talked about the fact that some of your pamphlets 

I believe weren’t produced. Mr. Eastman, you talked about donors 

shying away from going on and giving donations to your organizaVerDate Sep 11 2014 06:57 Jan 26, 2017 Jkt 021123 PO 00000 Frm 00103 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 I:\WAYS\WAYSPS\21123\21123.XXX 21123

dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS
100 

tion. That is a chilling effect. And if we don’t hold this community, 

this city accountable, where do you think it is going to go? Do you 

think it is going to get worse, or do you think it is going to get better? Would you advise us to just sit silently by and do what so 

many elected officials have done before, in my opinion, say, oh, 

there is a problem; we have to change the law to make sure it 

never happens again? You know what, we need to enforce the law 

that is on the book. 

You point out the fact that this is a felony, Mr. Eastman—a felony. That is equivalent to who? Murderers are felons. Robbers are 

felons. The law has been declared that we are going to hold this 

type of behavior accountable to the level of the seriousness of a felony, and yet what we have heard so far is, oh, it was inadvertent; 

it was a mistake. Does that make you feel better? Does that make 

you feel better that that is the standard that we are going to potentially live with as the accountability measure for us in Washington? 

Mr. EASTMAN. When the claim is so divided and apart from 

what we know to be the truth, it doesn’t make me feel better at 

all. 

Mr. REED. I would also just like to—and I want to end with your 

words on this. You are the individuals that have stood up and have 

come here, and you said you are not going to be silent. And I applaud that. But how many of your colleagues do you think are similar to the ones that came up to me during the week when I was 

back home working the district that said, Hey, you know, I want 

to tell you what happened to me, but don’t use my name? How 

many do you think are out there? Do any of you want to hazard 

a guess as to what that number is? 

Ms. Kenney. 

Ms. KENNEY. Just last week I had one of our attendees say, 

‘‘Please, take my name off the email; I am afraid.’’ 

There is a lot of language here about people going in and out of 

the shadows. The citizenship ticket in this particular place, with 

this issue, should be the rule of law; nothing more, nothing less. 

Please go where these facts lead you. 

Mr. REED. Does anyone want to hazard a guess? Do you think 

thousands; tens of thousands; hundreds of thousands? There are 

300 million plus Americans watching this on TV. Do you think that 

many Americans, with the busy lives they have, are going to say, 

‘‘Oh, yeah, that is what I want to do with my free time?’’ 

Mr. EASTMAN. The prospect of challenging the IRS and having 

your last 10 years of tax returns gone through with a fine-tooth 

comb is chilling for many Americans. I, for the first time, bought 

Audit Defense when I filed my Turbo Tax tax returns this year. 

This is scary. 

They always say, ‘‘Don’t fight city hall.’’ But at some point, you 

have to stand and fight, or city hall is no longer what it is supposed 

to be. 

Chairman CAMP. Thank you. Time has expired. 

I have been made aware another Member seeks recognition. 

Mr. Crowley is recognized. 

Mr. CROWLEY. I thank the Chairman. 

I am sorry I had to step out for quite a bit. I missed a few of 

the statements, and one in particular by one of my colleagues. 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS
101 

Let me start by saying to the witnesses, each and every one of 

you, you are all victims here. You and so many other groups, conservative and progressive alike, targeted by the IRS are the victims. And to say otherwise is wrong, and it is not representative 

of the Democratic Party as well. 

As the Chairman noted in an email he sent out yesterday, the 

outrage at what is occurring at the IRS is shared by Republicans 

and Democrats alike. 

Second, while I welcome the witnesses, I would like to highlight 

the fact that the Minority party is typically allowed to invite one 

witness to each hearing. We did not invite a witness to this hearing. That is not because progressive groups were not targeted by 

the IRS; they were. In fact, the TIG report looking into this targeting documented that fact. I would like to submit for the record 

this list of dozens of progressive groups who were inappropriately 

targeted alongside Tea Party groups by the IRS. 

Chairman CAMP. Without objection. 

[The first submission of The Honorable Joe Crowley follows:] 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS
102 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21123A.034
103 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21123A.035
104 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21123A.036
105 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21123A.037
106 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21123A.038
107 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21123A.039
108 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21123A.040
109 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21123A.041
110 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21123A.042
111 

f 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21123A.043
112 

Chairman CAMP. And I would say to Mr. Crowley, as I said to 

Mr. Kind earlier, the Minority did not identify any witnesses that 

had been targeted by the IRS, but were certainly given the opportunity to do so. 

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I am still making my statement. 

Chairman CAMP. That is correct—— 

Mr. CROWLEY. So I think I will clarify my point right now, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Chairman CAMP. You may continue. 

Mr. CROWLEY. Rather, instead of making this about ideological 

groups, we Democrats want to make this hearing about the facts 

and how we prevent this targeting from happening again. 

Whether it be the targeting of progressive or conservative groups, 

and everyone else in between, although the members of the groups 

testifying today might never vote for me if I was on their ballot, 

I want each and every one of them to know, as a Congress, we collectively represent you. 

As many may recall, I asked Lois Lerner of the IRS Tax Exempt 

Office about whether the IRS was politically targeting groups 2 

days before she and the IRS came clean to the world and admitted 

the agency was in fact screening on ideological grounds. Many have 

asked me why I asked Ms. Lerner about this matter before the 

public awareness or outrage took place. The reason is no American 

should be targeted by the government for their personal views. And 

I wanted to get to the bottom of the rumors that had been circulating for some time that the IRS was in fact, once again, targeting 

certain individuals. 

Unfortunately, this is not the IRS’ first time mixing up its mission with its personal politics. Starting in 2002 and 2004, under 

then President Bush, the IRS went after progressive Christian 

churches, the NAACP, and environmental groups, and its actions 

are as wrong today as they were in 2004. While I don’t recall the 

same bipartisan outrage existing then as I believe it does today, it 

should have. Because no agency has the right to target or discriminate based on political ideology. 

So I do want to correct the record on a few matters. Some of my 

Republican colleagues have been working overtime to try to paint 

this as a political conspiracy by the White House. There is no evidence tying this to the White House. In fact, the IG’s report makes 

that clear. 

At our most recent hearing on this topic, the Treasury Inspector 

General, who was appointed by President Bush, testified that no officials at either the Treasury Department or the White House were 

involved or knew of anything about the targeting. The same Inspector General, under questioning from Congresswoman Lynn Jenkins, said that he would have questioned and investigated senior 

Treasury Department and any Obama Administration official if he 

thought they were involved. But, again, he testified under oath 

that they were not involved. I would like to submit the discussion 

between Ms. Jenkins and the Treasury Inspector General into the 

record. 

Chairman CAMP. Without objection. 

[The second submission of The Honorable Joe Crowley follows:] 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS
113 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21123A.044
114 

f 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21123A.045
115 

Mr. CROWLEY. And it was the same Inspector General who notified Congressional Republicans, including Chairman Darryl Issa, 

of his investigation into political targeting of groups by the IRS in 

the summer of 2012, months before the 2012 national elections. I 

would like to submit the Treasury Inspector General’s letter to Mr. 

Issa and the RSC Chair Jim Jordan confirming this investigation 

into the IRS dated July 11, 2012, into the record. 

Chairman CAMP. Without objection. 

[The third submission of The Honorable Joe Crowley follows:] 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS
116 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21123A.046
117 

f 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS21123A.047
118 

Mr. CROWLEY. Do you really think that if there was evidence 

of political targeting at the highest levels of our government during 

an election year, that Members of Congress, like Chairman Issa, 

would have sat quietly and not brought this to the public’s attention? I think Chairman Issa’s silence speaks for itself. He did nothing and said nothing because there was no whistle to blow. 

What concerns me is that this is the second chapter in less than 

a decade that the IRS has been caught going rogue. They went 

rogue in 2002, 2004, when they inappropriately targeted churches, 

religious groups, and the NAACP. 

Mr. Chairman, I think the record speaks for itself. There is no 

smoking gun. What happened to these Americans is intolerable and 

ought not to have happened, whether it be progressive or conservative groups. The actions of the IRS, be they from a Democratic 

side or Republican side, a Republican Administration or a Democratic Administration, should never be tolerated, never be tolerated. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman CAMP. Thank you. 

I want to thank the witnesses for coming forward today. It is not 

an easy thing to do to sit through a congressional hearing and answer questions from a whole variety of perspectives and Members. 

But I want to tell you how impressed I am with the answers that 

you gave and the quality of your testimony. I am also impressed 

with your moral conviction, the perseverance and the courage you 

have shown by being here today and representing so many other 

Americans who are equally affected. 

You have helped the Committee a great deal, but more importantly, you have helped the American people a great deal and you 

have helped the Nation a great deal, and I thank you very much 

for that. 

With that, this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 1:30 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

Æ 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with LOCATORS