The IRS, which did not seem to find any lessons in its political targeting scandal last spring, is proposing new regulations to restrict political speech. I submitted comments, as did well over 100,000 other Americans before last night's deadline. This is what I told the IRS:

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is today the most widely feared federal agency, and rightly so in light of last spring’s revelations about the politically motivated targeting of certain organizations. To all but the most partisan eye, the IRS was turned into a political weapon against the opponents of the current administration.

This is simply wrong. It is un-American.

The proposed rule furthers this weaponization of the agency. In order for the IRS to perform its mission of collecting what revenue is needed to fund the government’s constitutionally defined duties, it must be totally without partisanship. It must be completely separated from serving political goals. It must never be used by either party to target Americans in a way that limits their political participation.

Yet this rule does so, starting with the fact that it applies only to 501(c)(4) organizations while leaving 501(c)(5) organizations unhindered. From the start it is a blatant attempt to harm this administration’s opponents while leaving unfettered those groups that favor the administration.

This rule, designed to limit some Americans’ First Amendment rights, chills the freedom that is the foundation of all our other freedoms. It endangers Americans’ patriotic willingness to engage in their constitutional right to express their views without fear of retribution from any administration of any party. All Americans of goodwill, no matter their party, should view it with great suspicion.

I urge the IRS to abandon this cynical, unconstitutional attempt to limit free speech. It is a rule worthy of an autocracy. It is a rule that insults our founders and every American citizen.

This should not be a partisan issue. And in some ways, it isn’t: The Wall Street Journal pointed out that liberal groups have been weighing in, realizing that power to silence opponents can be used against them, too:

“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.’”

Exactly. So far, the IRS’ efforts to suppress the administration’s opponents have hit conservative groups, such as a group that helped ensure vote integrity during unions’ attempt to recall Gov. Scott Walker. That harassment dragged on for three years. But if people whose views are on the left side of the spectrum think that such abuse could never be deployed against anyone but conservatives, they are naive.

Bradley Smith, former chairman of the Federal Election Commission, explains in this morning’s Wall Street Journal just how this abuse happens even without an explicit order from the White House. A growing series of criticisms from public officials all the way up to the president made it clear to IRS officials what was expected of them. And now:

“Feb. 13, 2014: The Hill newspaper reports that ‘Senate Democrats facing tough elections this year want the Internal Revenue Service to play a more aggressive role in regulating outside groups expected to spend millions of dollars on their races.’”

What makes anyone think that explicitly writing such control of Americans’ political speech into tax regulations will do anything but increase the temptation for future administrations to suppress our First Amendment rights?