http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303704304579382983945174994?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

The media have remained quiet about the IRS targeting of conservative nonprofit groups and even quieter about the proposed IRS rule to restrict their political speech. Maybe our colleagues will snap out of their slumber now that the objections are coming from liberals.

The comment period for the new IRS political-speech rule is open until Feb. 27, but already there have been more than 69,000 comments, the majority negative. That’s far more than the normal reaction to a new regulation—only 7,353 comments on the Keystone XL pipeline, according to Regulations.gov—and it shows how much anger and concern the rule has generated across the political spectrum.

Enlarge Image

Corbis

Consider some highlights. In a 26-page comment that can fairly be called blistering, the American Civil Liberties Union says the rule “will produce the same structural issues at the IRS that led to the use of inappropriate criteria in the selection of various charitable and social welfare groups for undue scrutiny.” Read: Same as targeting the tea party.

Social-welfare outfits should be able to criticize candidates freely, the ACLU writes, because that kind of advocacy is “at the heart of our representative democracy. To the extent it influences voting, it does so by promoting an informed citizenry.”

Cathy Duvall, director of strategic partnerships at the Sierra Club, that scold of fossil fuels, has said the new rule “harms efforts that have nothing to do with politics, from our ability to communicate with our members about clean air and water to our efforts to educate the public about toxic pollution.”

In the Nation magazine, Nan Aron of the liberal judicial lobby the Alliance for Justice writes that 501(c)(4)s aren’t merely groups like Karl Rove’s Crossroads GPS, but are “made up of over 86,000 mostly small organizations nationwide” that are active participants in civic life.

“They weren’t invented in the last election cycle; they’ve been around for generations. Their purpose isn’t to hide donors, it’s to advance policies,” Ms. Aron adds. “These groups are involved in elections, because it’s often impossible to advance a policy cause without being involved in the political process.”

Welcome to the fight, Nan. We could have used you when the original scandal was breaking, but at least you have figured out that a rule that lets a Democratic IRS target conservatives is one that will also let a GOP IRS target liberals. Either way, it’s a bad idea.

Under the draft rule, the IRS would recategorize a broad swath of nonprofit actions as political, including any public communication that identifies a candidate within 30 days of a primary election or 60 days of a general election. The rule would also count any communication, public or private, as political if it expresses “a view on, whether for or against, the selection, nomination, election, or appointment of one or more clearly identified candidates or of candidates of a political party.”

This redefinition is important because 501(c)(4)s have traditionally been limited to spending somewhere around 49% or less of their activity on politics to keep their tax exemption. The new rule would instantly redefine so much behavior as politics that hundreds of groups would suddenly have to change what they do or stop promoting their issues. Even laws that are colloquially referred to by the names of their sponsors, like ObamaCare or McCain-Feingold, could also be counted as “political” activity for a 501(c)(4) that mentions them or their policies.

The IRS has said it might go even further and reduce the 49% share limit on politics. “Some have questioned the use of the ‘primarily’ standard in the section 501(c)(4) regulations and suggested that this standard should be changed,” the IRS writes in its request for comments. To what—40% or 20%?

By restricting the ability of 501(c)(4)s to engage in politics, the Administration hopes more groups will have to register as political committees instead of social-welfare groups and thus disclose their donors. The purpose of this disclosure is to set up donors as political targets for boycotts and intimidation so the costs of participating in politics will be too steep.

New York Democrat Chuck Schumer recently gave this game away when he urged the IRS and Administration to “redouble” their efforts to crack down on the “tea party elites” who “gained extraordinary influence by being able to funnel millions of dollars into campaigns with ads that distort the truth and attack government.”

In other words, Mr. Schumer and the White House want to use the IRS to impose campaign-finance reform. But that’s a role Congress has never envisioned for what is supposed to be the nonpartisan tax authority. Congress set up the Federal Election Commission, with three members each from both parties, to enforce campaign-finance regulations so there would be a check on partisan enforcement.

Conservative criticism hasn’t stopped the Obama IRS, but maybe liberal unhappiness will. The Treasury Department said earlier this month that the draft rule is merely the “first step in a careful, thoughtful process.” It’s been thoughtful only in the sense that it is driven by political motives. If the liberals don’t want some future Republican IRS to reduce their political speech, they’ll continue the clamor until the White House kills this assault on the First Amendment.