When Internal Revenue Service officials researched applications for tax-exempt status to ensure they were not overtly political groups in disguise, they were right.

When the same officials apparently focused their attention on right-wing groups, as opposed to all groups, they were wrong.

When the United States Justice Department uses its investigative powers to stop imminent and direct threats on American soil, they are right.

When the same department investigated the Associated Press with secret wiretaps to determine the sources of classified information leaks, it was wrong. Way wrong.

ADVERTISEMENT

What President Barack Obama knew about these matters and when he knew them is of course important, though it seems highly doubtful on the IRS story and unknown in the case of the AP taps. But far more important is ascertaining if government officials with a wide range of discretionary authority have made serious blunders that demonstrate a perilous usurpation of power, whether or not politically intended.

The persistent Bengazi investigations, which though highly visible haven’t seemed to produce much in the way of coverups alleged by the administration’s foes, may soon give way to public consternation about what may soon be known as the season of Tax and Tap.

If the president was focused on building coalitions among those from both sides of the aisles, he’s going to have to do a whole lot of work, as the effects of the recent disclosures are likely to anger citizens of many political backgrounds.

The IRS calamity, which staff have admitted was a blunder, could have been a plus for the feds. To differentiate those with charitable purposes from others who are pushing overtly electoral agendas under the aegis of preferred tax treatment, is a valuable and necessary exercise.

In fact, as acting IRS commissioner Steve Miller pointed out in his apologetic USA Today column Monday, the underlying context was a bombardment of applications: “We sought to centralize work in this area in 2010 because our office of Exempt Organizations observed a sharp increase in the number of section 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) applications coming from groups potentially engaged in political campaign intervention. Between 2010 and 2012, the number of applications for 501(c)(4) status more than doubled, from 1,591 to 3,398.”

Turns out, however, that applications were apparently being vetted based on certain key words and phrases that in some instances had right-wing overtones, such as “Tea Party” and “Patriot.” If this is the case, then at the least, the practice was incomplete and wrong and could have caused biased results.

At worst, there were officials with intent to focus on one side of the aisle, though even if that’s the case, it does not yet reek of any higher-level participation: As longtime IRS exec Floyd Williams was quoted in Reuters, “I would drop over dead if there were any indication that the White House was involved and I would say the same with Treasury,” Williams said. “It is deliberately decentralized because of the notion that the political people should not be involved in the day activities.”

If the IRS escapade elicited mostly critiques from the right, then the AP situation is going to bring out a strong cadre of voices across the spectrum who are deeply offended by the seemingly cavalier approach to intrusive wiretapping of media institutions. The White House has cracked down on leakers and in the process of doing so, justice has cast its net wide in ascertaining the source. But as AP President Gary Pruitt said to Attorney General Eric Holder in a letter reported in the Washington Post, the scope was well beyond reasonable:

“There can be no possible justification for such an overbroad collection of the telephone communications of the Associated Press and its reporters,” Pruitt wrote to Holder. “These records potentially reveal communications with confidential sources across all of the newsgathering activities undertaken by the AP during a two-month period, provide a road map to AP’s newsgathering operations, and disclose information about AP’s activities and operations that the government has no conceivable right to know.”

In this case, we know that the genesis of the issue arose in a political climate. The Republican side accused the White House of utilizing media proxies to look tough on terrorism in the election season; Holder rebuffed special prosecutor requests and started his own investigations, at least one focused on leaks about the Stuxnet worm utilized by the U.S. and Israel to damage Iran’s nuclear centrifuges.

No matter the intention, the intrusion into media company operations, and the IRS focus on certain types of organizations over others, create a terrible impression and precedent for governmental action. Obama has already overtly criticized the IRS conduct, and we urge him to do the same with regard to the hugely overbroad AP wiretaps and investigation.