The extraordinary revelation this week that the Internal Revenue Service targeted tea party groups for more aggressive enforcement highlights exactly why caution is needed in any response to the much-vilified Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC . It also shows how all Americans , from the most liberal to the most conservative , should closely guard their First Amendment rights , and why giving the government too much power to limit political speech will inevitably result in selective enforcement against unpopular groups . To the agency 's credit , Lois Lerner , a senior official at the IRS , apologized on Friday for these unconstitutional practices , which are as unseemly as the Bush administration 's targeting of the NAACP and the House of Representatives ' defunding of Planned Parenthood on purely political grounds . Lerner said that career IRS staff who were reviewing applicants for tax-exempt status took a harder look at applications with `` tea party '' or `` patriot '' in their names . She stressed that the added scrutiny was done as a `` shortcut , '' not out of `` political bias . '' But her admission calls into question earlier claims by the agency that IRS scrutiny was n't politically motivated , and it comes in the face of repeated complaints by right-wing groups that they have been treated unfairly . Collins says IRS revelations will fuel distrust in government . Before addressing the obvious constitutional concerns with the selective use of the tax code against political opponents , here 's some background . Certain public interest groups , like charities and nonprofit athletic organizations , do not have to pay federal income tax on their donations or dues . These tax-exempt groups include 501 ( c ) ( 4 ) organizations ( named for the relevant section of the code ) . To qualify , a group must be `` operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare . '' The definition of `` social welfare '' is broad , and applies to all points of view . The ACLU 's lobbying arm , for which we work , is a 501 ( c ) ( 4 ) . So is the National Right to Life Committee . These social welfare groups are forbidden from engaging in too much partisan political activity . How much is too much , however , is controversial and remains uncertain . An organization that crosses over the fuzzy line will be denied tax-exempt status . 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 . Now , during the past couple of elections there has been a surge in applications for 501 ( c ) ( 4 ) tax-exempt status . Some argue that these new groups are being created specifically to help elect or defeat candidates , which would otherwise prompt full donor disclosure to the Federal Election Commission . Opponents claim these groups are abusively claiming tax-exempt status to keep their donor lists secret . Some further claim that these groups then allow wealthy individuals , corporations , and unions to anonymously funnel large amounts of money into ads supporting or attacking political candidates . As a consequence , the IRS has been under enormous pressure to speed up and aggressively investigate applications for tax-exempt status -- both reasonable demands , if carried out impartially . But much of this outside pressure has come from the left and has been directed at conservative groups , who have an advantage in this `` dark '' political money . It sounds as though the events surrounding the IRS announcement can be partly attributed to this growth in applications and the pressure to uncover `` sham '' 501 ( c ) ( 4 ) groups . Although the IRS claims this was an honest mistake , these revelations are troubling on many levels . For instance , there are several proposals circulating in Washington right now that would make it much easier for the IRS and other regulators to force political groups to disclose their donors . These disclosure requirements would apply even when the group is advocating purely on an issue of public interest , from clean air to abortion , and would apply to groups of all political persuasions and not just to groups supporting or opposing candidates for office . The ACLU has expressed concern with these disclosure requirements precisely because they open the door to selective enforcement . Such concerns are often dismissed as speculative and overly pessimistic , but the IRS apology shows that concerns over selective enforcement are prescient . Those in power will always be tempted to use political speech restrictions against opposing candidates or causes . The IRS announcement demonstrates that we should carefully consider any new policy that allows the government to restrict or chill political speech , including broader donor disclosure requirements . Congress and the administration should also act immediately to create ironclad checks on the IRS to prevent this from ever happening again . It should n't need to be said : Even the tea party deserves First Amendment protection .
IRS targeted tea party groups for more aggressive tax law enforcement . Authors say politically motivated enforcement is a risk of efforts to counter Citizens United ruling . IRS has been under pressure from the left to crack down on conservative groups , they say . Authors : Administration , Congress need to enact ironclad rules to prevent repetition .