I’m not all that outraged that the I.R.S. held up applications by Tea Party groups for tax-exempt status. I’m outraged that any of them—or their liberal counterparts—qualify for that status at all.

Unfortunately, given the way this I.R.S. scandal slid so easily into ideological definitions, I fear that few non-politicos are recognizing the real disgrace here: that the federal government—Congress, the White House, the tax agency, and the Supreme Court—has created a situation where blatantly political organizations are able to legally break the law by pretending they’re something that they’re not.

The key to this obscene state of affairs is an entity known as a 501(c)(4), named for the section of the tax code that created it. Supposedly, these are civic associations or organizations devoted to social welfare, which can operate tax-free, but whose donors aren’t allowed to deduct their contributions. Fair enough.

But then comes the loopholes that politicos have used to drive not only a truck through the intention of the law but a whole fleet. Unlike a wholly charitable organization, a 501(c)(4) can engage in political activities, so long as it is not its primary purpose. In other words, I could form an organization that spends 49.99999 percent of its time, energy, and money on politics and still be deemed tax exempt. In other words, you, me—every American citizen—can be providing a tax subsidy to groups that (theoretically) are spending almost half of their money on politics. It’s worse than that. Under the law, a 501(c)(4) can spend an unlimitedamount of money on lobbying, so long as it is related to its “primary purpose.” So, in truth, an organization can be fully political under any rational interpretation of the meaning of that word, yet be deemed not to be primarily political under the law.

The floodgates for this disgusting arrangement were largely opened—like almost all things that have perverted modern American democracy—from the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens Unitedvs.Federal Election Commission.* *This is the case where the Supreme Court ruled that corporations, associations, and labor unions have the right to invest unlimited amounts of money in political campaigns under the specious idea that they held the same rights to free speech that individuals do. In other words, that those entities with cash—that don’t even have the right to cast a ballot—get to be heard more on political issues than individual voters do. While they can’t give money to specific candidates, they can do whatever they want to support them so long as they act independently.

Some commentators and politicos—almost all Republicans—hailed the decision as a victory for free speech, one that would improve the system. “There will certainly be campaign abuses, as there are now, and many will not be happy with the court’s ruling,” Ed Rollins, a longtime G.O.P. political consultant, said at the time. “But the full disclosure law lets you know who is doing what and that’s a good thing.”

Yah, right. Add in the 501(c)(4) rules, and you don’t get to know what anyone is doing. Citizens United specified that 501(c)(4)s could make expenditures in political races, so long as they meet the “primary purpose” standard. And while these organizations have to disclose the money they spent, they don’t have to say anything about who donated it. So, if Joe the Multibillionaire wants to have greater say in the direction of our political system than any other individual, he could legally launder $500 million through a 501(c)(4), which then spends $249.999 million on political races, and another couple of hundred million on lobbying, grass-roots organizing, etc.