These are anti-tax organizations. Imagine that the taxing authority might be interested in their activities. The head of the IRS is a Republican appointee, who if anything would be sympathetic to them from a political standpoint.
Would you advocate in favor of DEA agents harassing marijuana legalization non-profits? Preemptively: if not, why are you defending the practice of the same being done to your political opponents?
That's a nonsensical question, because the DEA does not have the authority or responsibility to decide anything about applications for non-profit status under tax law.
IRS does. And if they stop investigating right-wing organizations selectively (while still investigating other applications) because it will be perceived as unfair, then they will be doing the wrong thing.
My understanding is that they are focusing on right wing organizations. If they are just investigating them at the ordinary rate the.n this is not a problem.
The difference is that citizens have a right against unreasonable search and seizure without probable cause. This constraints what law enforcement agents can do on whims and conjecture. Presumably, the IRS need no cause to provide any tax filing with extra scrutiny or an outright audit. From this perspective, these groups are not protected in the least against "unfair auditing", as that statement has no legal basis whatsoever.. If the IRS can audit anyone's filing, then it makes sense for them to direct limited resources to audit groups who's entire existence is to avoid paying taxess.
Would you advocate in favor of DEA agents harassing marijuana legalization non-profits?
Harassing, no; but it's reasonable to presume that members of groups which agitate for marijuana legalization are more likely to be growing, selling, and/or using marijuana illegally, and thus to have a higher index of suspicion if presented with evidence which might indicate that such illegal activities are taking place.
You appear to be missing the exact point, here. In a free society, it's specifically NOT reasonable for government to investigate anybody based solely on their political advocacy. Government powers should not be used to pursue or dissuade a political agenda. Even the mere threat of an investigation can be a frightening weapon, possibly enough to discourage citizens from political activities.
There's a difference between investigating people based on their political activities and investigating people because their comments indicate a likelihood of criminal activity.
To take an extreme case: If I travel around the US and tell everybody I encounter that I think the White House should be blown up, I think it would be entirely reasonable for the Secret Service to investigate. I might make such proclamations out of abstract personal convictions, or I might make them because I'm the sort of crazy person who would actually try to blow up the White House; the whole point of investigation is to determine which.
Philosophically, I believe you're correct. But in practice, it's all too easy for a government official to harass political opponents for partisan ends, while steadfastly claiming to be objective and neutral. Barring an outright admission of bias, there's no simple way to prove a political agenda.
As a result, US jurisprudence has grown to recognize the potential for government acts to have "chilling effects" on individual rights, even with no evidence of overt bias. Under this theory, certain civil rights (speech, religion, voting, due process) are so terrifically important that government must err on the side of caution, rather than risk discouraging their exercise.
Of course, as with any civil rights issue, we do consider the severity of circumstances in each case. Unfettered free speech swings a lot of weight, but there are always exceptions. Preventing violent terrorist acts (as in your last example) might justify allowing some chilling effects on speech.
However, the courts have vigorously protected speech advocating NON-violent criminal acts (sit ins, protests, draft-card burning) and changes to current laws (drug prohibition). This category seems to cover both your earlier example (marijuana reform), as well as the original situation (tax reform).
And FWIW, kids: This little back-and-forth is a great example of why arguments by analogy don't work.
