Get some

[callmeslick]

section h refers to acceptable charitable donations, and really doesn't pertain. An example for why that was inserted is the group I give to that is a tax-deductable charity for the purpose of protecting the Chesapeake bay. They can, legally, testify before Congress in legislative hearings about the bay. Under section 501(c), this would not disallow them tax-exempt status, as they are a resource. They cannot, however, either urge for election of candidates, nor put forth calls for or against proposed legislation.
Bottom line, Pud, is that you are ducking the facts I presented you with, and, if anything, proving my original assertion that I could spell it out for you and you still wouldn't grasp it. No 501(c) group ought to have ANYTHING to do with ANY political activity of ANY sort. Keep it that simple, and no one ever has to worry about IRS investigations into political groups again. And, returning it to the original simplicity is what the Obama administration is going to do, because thata is right.

[Pudfark]

Ya should'a just repeated yerself "Any deviation has been only by the whim of Presidential lawyers since it was written." it would'a saved time.

Still...you've ignored this "Seventeen percent of the groups targeted for extra scrutiny may have been left-leaning, but when it came to actual audits, 100 percent of the targets were conservative."

Old Pudfark sez: " Best way to get outta box? Don't get in it....in the first place... "

[callmeslick]

maybe the only ones whose response at the initial inquiry WARRANTED further audits were conservative. Lord knows, those groups tend to draw really stupid folks, so maybe that was reflected in how they handled the books.