The use of the term pejorative to describe Congress' use of the word "targeting" of certain groups by IRS agents may be spot on. "Pejorative" is defined as "having a disparaging, derogatory, or belittling effect or force." Congress is implying the IRS was biased in its rulings without statistical evidence to support its charge that the rulings were biased.
Let's review the background:
Upon the 2010 "Citizens United" decision, money became synonymous with speech and IRS 501(c)4 groups became the nonprofits of choice because they do not have to reveal the amounts or the names of their donors because they are "exclusively" social welfare nonprofits whereas "super PACs" have always had to reveal political donations.
In most cases, when an under-staffed organization is faced with a monumental task, the use of a "triage" commonly becomes a more efficient method of applying minimum effort for maximum affect. A joint investigation by the Center for Public Integrity and the Center for Responsive Politics found "conservative social welfare" groups outspent "liberal" groups nearly 5 to 1 in the 2010 elections, which surely indicates the groups being reviewed are in the majority. It would be fair if 10 percent of conservative and liberal 501(c)4 organizations were rejected, but the "know-nothings" in Congress would claim that was unfair because five times as many were conservative.
How else can the majority be reviewed without appearing to "target" them in a pejorative sense or otherwise? To conclude these groups were unfairly "targeted" by the IRS would be totally ignorant of the facts. But that's our Congress.
Jack Cassidy
Johnstown