IRS Proposes New Rules To Regulate Non-Profit Political Activity

Political Realities ^ | 12/09/13 | LD Jackson

[LD Jackson]

We all know the government agency we love to hate. The IRS is the most feared and hated government agency Washington, D.C has managed to come up with. That fear and hatred was never more evidenced than when it was discovered that the IRS had been intentionally targeting conservative organizations when they asked to be granted 501(c)(4) status. Congressional hearings were held to find out exactly what was going on and the woman in charge of the uncalled for scrutiny managed to wiggle her way out of the hot seat. Lois Lerner pleaded the 5th Amendment, after stating she had done nothing wrong.

There is speculation, and evidence to back it up, that the IRS performed its scrutinizing of conservative groups at the behest of the Obama administration. In spite of his fabricated outrage, President Obama did meet with the head of the IRS several times before the IRS started its campaign to target conservative groups asking for 501(c)(4) status. That scandal has been largely sidelined by other scandals, but that does not mean the IRS is changing its tactics. They are, if anything doubling down in their attack on non-profit political groups and have proposed new rules to regulate non-profit political activity.

The Wall Street Journal - Six months after the Internal Revenue Service's inspector general revealed that the tax-collection agency had been targeting conservative organizations for added scrutiny and delaying their applications for tax-exempt status, the IRS has proposed new rules for handling political activity by nonprofits. The proposed rules would plunge the agency deeper into political regulation.

The rules would upset more than 50 years of settled law and practice by limiting the ability of certain tax-exempt nonprofits, organized under Section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code, to conduct nonpartisan voter registration and voter education. Such organizations would be forbidden to leave records of officeholder votes and public statements on their websites in the two months before an election.

It is tempting to pick the proposed rules apart—and there is much to pick, such as restrictions on a nonprofit discussing any aspect of a president's judicial nominees in a public communication any time between Feb. 2 and a national election day nine months later. But it is more important to ask how we got here. Why is the IRS regulating political activity at all?

The article from The Wall Street Journal raises an important question. Indeed, why is the IRS entangling itself in the field of regulating political activity? The answer is simple. Liberal activists are frustrated with recent court rulings allowing 501(c)(4) organizations to work in the political arena. In order to achieve their goals, they are falling back on their trusted Plan B. When they can't work the courts to their favor and Congress refuses to play ball by passing new legislation according to liberal designs, they ask a government agency to issue new regulations that will accomplish the same goals.

We have seen this Plan B in action with the EPA. When in doubt, issue new regulations and rules that bypass Congress and the American people. It has been especially active with ObamaCare. They passed a law that left it up to the Obama administration and the Department of Health and Human Services to issue the rules and regulations that would make up the bulk of ObamaCare. That's how Obama has been able to change the law at his whim and fancy.

The IRS is in the process of trying to do the same thing. The Obama administration has an intense dislike for the ruling handed down on the Citizens United Case. The President even went so far as to chastise the Supreme Court Justices in one of his State of the Union speeches. Because they have been disappointed and frustrated by the courts, they are trying to take matters into their own hands.

The author of the article only mentions two of the proposed rules. He is focused on asking why the IRS is even in the business of regulating political activity, and rightfully so. Those two rules, however, should tell us all we need to know. The first would require 501(c)(4) organizations to remove any records of officeholder votes and public statements from their websites two months before an election. The second would prevent 501(c)(4) organizations from publicly talking about a president's judicial nominee from February 2 to a national election held some nine months later.

The obvious question arises. Why are these two rules being proposed? The only possible answer is that the IRS is trying to limit the information the voters have available to them as they make their decision about whom to vote for. That, my fellow Americans, is not a good thing. We need to shine a very bright light on the IRS and what it is trying to do.

[DaveA37]

IF the Congress critters had any backbone, they would totally defund the IRS and abolish it completely. A REAL and FORMAL message needs to be sent to all gubmint entities, abuse your power and you will reap the consequences.

[Aevery_Freeman]

That - the abolition of the IRS - would end slavery in America.

Politicians and their minions would be forced to get real jobs, businesses would no longer be subject to extortion through regulation and taxation, vast sectors of the economy would be free to grow, innovate and better serve the people.

Ain't gonna happen on their watch.

[BenLurkin]

records of officeholder votes and public statements

Can't have allow voters to be infomred. That will never do.

[Paladin2]

Make Congress to this dirty work.

Congress is a buncha lazy bums when it comes to writing Legislation.

[Paladin2]

Make Congress do this dirty work.

Congress is a buncha lazy bums when it comes to writing Legislation.

[goat granny]

The SCOTUS settled that question when McCain Finegold reached the court...found limiting free speech even of business was unconstitutional.