IRS and Principle over Party

[Savannahmann]

Interestingly enough, some of the things I most admire is when Liberals put Principle over party. I could post several examples, but I'll limit them to a couple just for edification of those who don't understand what I mean. This first one, the ACLU, long the bane of RW activists, defended a Republican's right to political speech. In this one, the ACLU joined with Conservatives to denounce a National ID card.

When we can find common ground with our political opponents, we should celebrate that. They are opponents, politically opposed to our ideology, but not enemies deserving of death. I can't imagine anyone in the ACLU voting Republican, or donating to Conservative causes. But they stood up and said that wrong, was wrong. They fought, and argued, to defend a Republican, because principle matters. They didn't turn and support a National ID card just because Conservatives opposed it. They correctly believed that a National ID card was a bad idea.

We didn't end McCarthyism by taking political power. We ended it by showing the world, including those RW types that had supported McCarthy, that he was a bully and a liar. We ended the harassment of Liberals by convincing the Conservatives of the era that it was wrong, morally wrong. A majority of the people went from supporting the harassment of the House Un-American activities investigations, to being silently uncomfortable, to opposing the harassment. It took years, but they finally saw the light and agreed that it was wrong.

So when we see targeting of groups based upon political beliefs, we have a simple choice. We can stand with principle. We can stand with party. We can decide we are enjoying our political opponents being the targets of harassment, or we can decide it's wrong and oppose that harassment. Too many here are supporting the harassment, people who would be screaming the loudest if the roles were reversed.

Beyond the principle, there is the political. The Tea Party claims that the Government is too large, too intrusive, and too abusive in its taxation. So the Government attempts to give the Tea Party an air of legitimacy that they would not otherwise have, by targeting them and essentially proving their argument that the government is too large, and too intrusive.

So here we are. We can stand aside, while the rest of the people in the nation object, loudly, to the IRS actions regarding the Tea Party. Labeling ourselves, for years, as politics over principle Leftists. Or we can stand with principles, and object to the targeting of any group based upon political beliefs. If we stand with principles, we are worthy of the long legacy of Liberal fighters who stood up for the ideals that are our foundation. We stand up for individual liberties, and civil rights, and most importantly equality before the law. If we stand aside, can we really expect the people to continue supporting us when we are so blatantly partisan that we figure Civil Liberties and Equality are applicable only when you espouse the correct political ideology?

I may detest the Tea Party as much as the rest of you. Like you, I think they're a bunch of nuts. But they are nuts who are entitled to their opinion, no matter how wrong it is to me. This is one of those opportunities that comes all too rarely. An opportunity to stand with our political opponents against injustice. The Tea Party has increased their legitimacy from this debacle. Will we sacrifice our own legitimacy because our hatred for them outweighs our love and dedication to principle?

[Katashi_itto]

1. Legitimacy? Hmmm I wonder if the German's that fought Nazism before it swallowed them

worried about that, about being principled. I sure in the end, as they were carted off to the camps, it really comforted them to know they had the moral high ground.

[SlimJimmy]

2. Very close to my thoughts on this.

[kentuck]

3. First of all, you have to stand for the law.

"We stand up for individual liberties, and civil rights, and most importantly equality before the law."

What does the law say about 501(c)4's??

[Savannahmann]

5. The 501 (c) 4 may be nonsense abuse to the taxpayer.

But it is nonsense that should be applied equally. We know that the RW Tea Party groups were targeted and required to provide information that there was no legal authority to demand. We know that the news is full of it day in and out. We should know that each story gives legitimacy to the Tea Party position that the Government is too big, too intrusive, and taxes are too high. We're hearing reports about progressive groups who got approved in three weeks, while the Tea Party affiliated or off shoot groups were delayed years, and in some cases are still delayed.

From a legal point of view, the directed targeting of groups based upon their beliefs is a civil rights violation. From a Political point of view, it is going to make it impossible to do anything to increase Government services for the needy while this cloud hangs over us. Also, the people who heard, but discounted the Tea Party message, will now be taking a second look, and wondering if the Tea Party was right. Many of them will become more sympathetic, which gives that movement legs it doesn't deserve.

[HeroInAHalfShell]

6. I completely agree!

[ieoeja]

9. Do you have a link to the IRS saying Tea Baggers were targeted because of their beliefs?

I thought they were targeted because they used the name of a partisan political movement while applying for tax exemption that is only given for non-partisan organizations.

If I applied for 501(c)4 status as "Democratic Party Social Outreach" the IRS should investigate me.

In fact, didn't the IRS Inspector General determine that it was wrong solely because it "looks bad", not because it was illegal?

[Savannahmann]

10. Well I'm not alone in thinking that it was wrong/illegal.

The ACLU is outraged that a group was targeted. Part of the complaint was that the RW groups had to name their diners.

Crucially, 501(c)(4) organizations, in most cases, need not publicly disclose their donors. That policy is driven by the same concerns that prompted the Supreme Court in a civil rights-era case, NAACP v. Alabama, to prohibit that state from forcing the NAACP to out its members as a condition of operating. The court reasoned, rightly, that such disclosure could lead to violence against existing members and would dissuade potential members from joining at all.

Non partisan is a cheat, that we all use. Progressive and RW. The standard is that you can't endorse a candidate for office, or say vote against a candidate for office. You can highlight individuals statements or votes, while being careful not to say vote for. Groups affiliated with our ideology were approved. Without the same requirements, illegal requirements, that the Tea Party were told they must meet.

Attorney General Holder has said yesterday, that the Justice Department is investigating. Today, the former head took the 5th Amendment refusing to testify. CSPAN is of course, covering this.

I would be surprised if this did not violate the civil rights of the Tea Party groups. If so, there may well be some criminal charges for those involved. Most often, regulations are in place because there are laws prohibiting certain actions. If those laws are criminal, which is to say that the violation can result in jail as well as fines, then the taking of the 5th today makes absolute sense. That is what I encourage everyone to do, make the Government prove that you violated the law.

But politically, it is the worst thing you can do. People assume you are guilty of something. So again, my love of Principle has this simple thing to say. I absolutely encourage Lois Lerner to exercise her rights under the 5th Amendment. Merely because a case is very public does not mean you sacrifice your rights. The Bill of Rights means we are all protected, always.

[kentuck]

11. Nonsense should not be applied equally.

It should be punished equally, I would agree. The law is specific. Karl Rove's America Crossroads, the big elephant in the room that people do not mention, did not qualify as a "social welfare" group. It was obviously political- as were some liberal groups, such as Harry Reid's.

The law is the law. A small fact is that not one conservative group was "denied" their tax exempt status. They were delayed but not denied. They should have been targeted and they should have been denied.

[LWolf]

4. I always put principle over party,

which means I'm often in the sights of party loyalists when I don't shut up and get in line.

[Safetykitten]

7. I want to see the hilarity ensue when the IRS and new HC thingy gets going. What a hoot!

[Puzzledtraveller]

8. Good post

But it's clear you need to be "reeducated" , or "taught a lesson". You are not allowed to say 2+2=4 when we all know 2+2=5.

[snooper2]

12. Time to kick some old scandals we forgot about!

What happened here, big IRS scandal? Oops, no, just some dude who liked to use teabagger in keyword searches LOL