Rein in the IRS by de-clubbing the thugs
Without a “smidgen of corruption” — at least in the alternate universe of President Obama — the IRS is moving ahead with a proposal that will bury tens of thousands of nonprofits in new paperwork. Consider it the Obama administration's “salute” to the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United verdict on political speech and campaign funding.
Under the 501(c)4 classification, “social welfare” nonprofits can participate in politics, provided politics aren't their primary focus. But the Internal Revenue Service's new policy would redefine “political activity.” The upshot would be “substantial … record-keeping and collection of information burden(s)” on more than 100,000 nonprofits, according to Judicial Watch, which is among those fighting the measure.
“The Obama IRS wants to kill the conservative movement with paperwork and regulation,” says Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.
A House bill that would block the IRS rule for one year stands little chance of passage in Mr. Obama's rubber-stamping Senate.
And never mind that the IRS' outrageous targeting of conservative groups — undertaken around the same time as when the new rule was being written — has prompted six investigations.
Before Obama & Co. get an even bigger cudgel with which to threaten and beat opponents, the IRS must be disarmed and brought to justice. The political thuggery must end.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Palmer v. District of Columbia: Upholding the 2nd Amendment
- The Justice Department’s improper political agenda
- Greensburg Tuesday takes
- Blaming Israel: A new low
- Alle-Kiski Tuesday takes
- Pittsburgh Tuesday takes
- Greensburg Laurels & Lances