This week the Justice Department announced it would not charge former Internal
Revenue Service (IRS) official Lois Lerner with contempt of Congress. Some
members of Congress requested that Lerner be charged with contempt after she
refused to testify at a congressional hearing investigating her role in denying
or delaying the applications for tax-exempt status of "tea party" and pro-limited
government organizations.
Cynics might suggest it is not surprising that a former government official
would avoid prosecution for refusing to tell Congress about how federal employees
abused their power to help the incumbent administration. These cynics have
a point, but the problem goes beyond mere partisanship. Government officials
are rarely prosecuted for even the most blatant violations of our liberties.
In contrast, federal prosecutors routinely pursue criminal charges against
whistleblowers. For example, the only American prosecuted and imprisoned in
relation to the government's use of torture was whistleblower John Kiriakou!
While some officials like Lois Lerner who find themselves at the center of
a high-profile scandal or partisan dispute can expect harsh treatment from
Congress, this is the expectation, not the rule. Executive branch officials
usually receive deferential treatment from members of Congress. I recall one
hearing on government surveillance where a representative actually apologized
to a government official because Congress had the gall to ask that official
to testify about the government's ongoing surveillance of the American people.
In contrast, private citizens called before Congress are harangued and even
bullied. Congress should stop using the hearing process to intimidate private
citizens and start using it to intimidate those government officials who are
threatening our liberty. For example, Congress should continue to investigate
the IRS's ongoing attempts to silence organizations that work to advance free
markets and individual liberty.
My Campaign for Liberty organization has had to battle an IRS demand that
it hand over personal information regarding some of its top donors. The IRS
is either ignoring, or ignorant of, the numerous precedents protecting the
right of organizations like the Campaign for Liberty to protect their members'
privacy from government officials.
The IRS is drafting a new regulation that would empower the agency to revoke
an organization's tax-exempt status if that organization sends out a communication
to its members or the general public mentioning a candidate for office by name
sixty days before an election or thirty days before a primary. By preventing
groups from telling their members where candidates stand on issues like Audit
the Fed and repeal of the PATRIOT Act, this anti-First Amendment regulation
benefits those politicians who wish to hide their beliefs from the voters.
Since the IRS's power stems from the tax system, the only way to protect
our liberty from this agency is to eliminate the tax code. Promising to end
the IRS is a popular applause line for politicians wishing to appear as champions
of liberty. This week, John Koskinen, the current IRS commissar, responded
to these cries to end the IRS by pointing out that shutting down the IRS would
deprive Congress of the revenue needed to fund the welfare-warfare state. Koskinen
has a point. Congress cannot shut down the IRS until it enacts major reductions
in all areas of government spending.
Politicians who vote for warfare abroad and welfare at home yet claim they
want to shut down the IRS should not be taken seriously. Freeing the people
from the IRS's tyranny is one of the best reasons to end the welfare-warfare
state and return the federal government to its constitutional limitations.
