Apologists for the Internal Revenue Service claim that there is no �smoking gun� linking the targeting of conservative groups applying for tax-exemptions to political bias. It would be more accurate...

Washington

Apologists for the Internal Revenue Service claim that there is no �smoking gun� linking the targeting of conservative groups applying for tax-exemptions to political bias. It would be more accurate to say that there�s too much smoke and too many guns to single out just one shooter.

The IRS was under tremendous pressure from members of Congress, including Rhode Island�s Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, President Obama and groups favoring greater regulation of political speech, to scrutinize conservative groups. As Lois Lerner, the disgraced IRS exempt-organization head, said in 2010: �Everyone is up in arms ... [and] they want the IRS to fix the problem.� Is it really a surprise that the IRS targeted these groups unfairly?

Just weeks before the IRS targeting scandal came to light, Senator Whitehouse said the IRS was �toothless� and letting social welfare advocacy groups make a �mockery� of campaign finance law.

In 2012, Whitehouse was one of seven senators to write the IRS urging investigations of tax-exempt organizations� political activities. He has also repeatedly introduced versions of the DISCLOSE Act, a bill originally proposed in 2010 by Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), who warned that the bill�s �deterrent effect� on political speech �should not be underestimated.�

Just weeks after Lerner revealed the scandal, Senator Whitehouse was back at work attacking nonprofit groups, saying in a speech on the Senate floor that the targeting was �not the only IRS scandal,� and warning that the Service is �allowing big shadowy forces to meddle in elections anonymously through front groups that file false statements.�

When the IRS recently proposed new rules that would severely limit the speech rights of social welfare advocacy groups like the American Civil Liberties Union, Sierra Club, National Rifle Association and gun control groups, Senator Whitehouse led a group of 16 senators in submitting comments commending the IRS for �taking a step in the right direction,� and urging the Service to �make clear that it is impermissible for political operatives to create what are for all practical purposes PACs, obtain 501(c)(4) status for those PACs ...�

We have campaign finance laws that determine what organizations are PACs, and those laws are administered by a bipartisan panel, the Federal Election Commission. We have the IRS to collect tax revenue. Unlike the FEC, the IRS is not bipartisan and is part of the Treasury Department, which is under the president�s control. In the past, presidents from Franklin Roosevelt to Richard Nixon have attempted to use the IRS � improperly � for partisan purposes. In fact, that was one of the charges of impeachment against Richard Nixon.

It is not conservative or liberal to say the IRS should leave campaign finance issues to the FEC; it is simply supporting the very basic principle that government agencies should operate within their specific areas of expertise.

Indeed, Nina Olson, the IRS�s National Taxpayer Advocate, issued a report on the scandal last summer noting the �IRS, a tax agency, is assigned to make an inherently controversial determination about political activity that another agency may be more qualified to make.� She recommended that it �may be advisable to separate political determinations from the function of revenue collection.�

The targeting scandal should have made clear the dangers of pushing agencies into areas of the law for which they lack expertise. By imposing special burdens on conservative groups, the IRS trampled over a core principle of freedom of speech � that government must treat everyone equally, regardless of their political views.

The aggressive targeting program violated the First Amendment rights of an untold number of Americans, damaged the agency�s credibility, and may even have affected the outcome of the 2012 elections. As a result of the targeting scandal, the reputation of the IRS is in shambles and its mission to �enforce the law with integrity and fairness to all� rings hollow.

The new political speech regulations proposed by the IRS would make the situation even worse. Groups across the spectrum, including First Amendment advocates, the ACLU, the AFL-CIO, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Tea Party groups and Citizens United, all agree that the proposed rules would infringe on speech.

One suspects that were George W. Bush still president, and Republican senators were asking for the IRS to use the tax code to silence his political opposition, Senator Whitehouse�s enthusiasm would decline. But maybe not. Maybe he really does think that the IRS should be a political enforcement agency. If so, it�s time he reconsider.

Luke Wachob is the McWethy Fellow at the Center for Competitive Politics.