I was attempting to contextualize the problem. I do think vague guidelines without objective measures lead to bias, pretty much inevitably. It does sound like someone gave guidelines that targeted conservatives. That was wrong, should be investigated, and the appropriate punishment meted out. Not sure what else you want me to say.
The IRS audit report
is interesting, although no doubt it represents some butt-covering, as well. Apparently the standards were changed multiple times, as people become aware of the political biase, removed it, and then it got re-introduced later.
Personally, I think that too many 501(c)(4) that are CLEARLY primarily political get authorized (on both sides), and I would like for more scrutiny to be applied to all groups. Searching for something like "Tea Party" is clearly stupid, since it's both biased and easily avoided. I suspect funding proper, objective, and timely determination of 501(c)(4) status would pay for itself, and that's the systematic long term solution.
Otherwise, vagueness plus bias will re-introduce this problem, perhaps in invisible ways. I guarantee that the vague standards are not applied consistently now, even without a "Tea Party" search... and that's an ongoing scandal even without explicit orders.