[DCBryan1]

...and they have SWAT teams now. Yes. teamS.

[stockpirate]

the 2nd amendment protects the 1st, man up.

[ConservativeMind]

“NeverTrumpers” are okay with this, as long as it makes Hillary president for the next eight years.

[VRWC For Truth]

Peanuts compared to Shitlerey being elected ...

[Blood of Tyrants]

In typical government Double Speak, the IRS justifies the rule change as necessary to help protect the “sanctity of elections.”

I'm from the government and I'm here to help. /spit

[Buckeye McFrog]

The October Surprise is going to be a leak of Trump’s tax returns. Take it to the bank.

[Safrguns]

I wonder how many people are aware that Trump vowed to end the “Johnson amendment” after the RNC?
(The Johnson amendment is what restricts religious organizations from engaging in political speech)

[BitWielder1]

IRS are probably busy going through Trump's old tax returns to find *any* mistakes they can smear him with.
In the mean time, no one there cares about Hillary's.

[WKUHilltopper]

The federal government has evolved to crush the American people.

[Maceman]

You people are ridiculous to worry about this stuff. Just remember what Obama told us and you'll see there's nothing to fear.

[TADSLOS]

In typical government Double Speak, the IRS justifies the rule change as necessary to help protect the “sanctity of elections.”

So, the IRS is going to collect back taxes on all those dead democrat voters too, right? You know...for the sanctity....

[T Ruth]

Repealing the income tax would fix this problem.

[Rockitz]

On Day 1, President Trump should shudder the IRS, fire all the employees, and start again.

[TangoLimaSierra]

Long past time for a tax revolt.

[Brilliant]

I think they are smart enough not to play their hand until after the election.

[Ancesthntr]

“hould the new rule look anything like what has been proposed previously, with one stroke of the pen the IRS would be able to reclassify heretofore clearly protected political speech as prohibited “electioneering.” A communication doing nothing more than mentioning the name of or position sought by a candidate – or simply showing their picture — before a primary or general election, would be sufficient to bring the power of the IRS down on that offending organization. Also at stake is the donor privacy of those organizations. “

---

Conservative groups need to have their lawyers prepare the paperwork for a gigantic class-action suit, to be filed the next morning - with a TRO as the minimum ask until after the election is over. Such a move by the IRS would be a transparent attempt to influence the election, to change the rules in the middle of the game.

I’d also like to see dozens or more of these groups tell the IRS to stick this regulation where the sun don’t shine, and just keep doing what they’re doing. You cannot outlaw free speech via a regular law, let alone a regulation.

[Biggirl]

The real “October surprise” will be those “lost e-mails” being released.

[aimhigh]

What a poorly written article. Can’t the author simply describe what the change is?

[Jacquerie]

If we lived in a republic, every rule, regulation would have to be approved by congress and the president.