Opinion Elizabeth Warren proposes taxing First Amendment rights - "First amendment rights" in this article means lobbying, by the way

Elizabeth Warren proposes taxing First Amendment rights

If you like the idea of taxing the exercising of First Amendment rights, well, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren now has a plan for that.

www.washingtonexaminer.com

If you like the idea of taxing the exercising of First Amendment rights, well, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren now has a plan for that.

Warren on Wednesday unveiled a plan she claimed would end excessive lobbying by imposing a tax on companies' lobbying expenditures. The way the tax would work is that "companies that spend between $500,000 and $1 million per year on lobbying, calculated on a quarterly basis, will pay a 35% tax on those expenditures. For every dollar above $1 million spent on lobbying, the rate will increase to 60% – and for every dollar above $5 million, it will increase to 75%."

The problem with the proposal is that it runs smack up against the First Amendment, which states that, "Congress shall make no law ... abridging ... the right of the people ... to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Given that businesses have the constitutional right to lobby, Congress cannot pass a law explicitly aimed at curbing their ability to exercise that right by way of a punitive tax.

If that were the case, a federal government frustrated with media coverage could levy special taxes on publishing or could crack down on protesters by imposing a punitive tax on protesting.

As lawyer Ted Frank put it, "There’s a legal reason Republicans haven’t tried to curb abortion by taxing it, and it’s not just because they don’t like taxes."

This proposal is just your regular reminder that Warren is a policy fraud. She churns out proposals that generate oohs and aahs from the media, yet they barely stand up to the most basic scrutiny. The crowning achievement of her career — the establishment of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau — itself was ruled structurally unconstitutional in federal court.

Curbing lobbying is a worthy goal. But the way to curb lobbying is to shrink the power of the federal government over the economy, so that changes to taxes, spending, and regulations in Washington do not have such a dramatic influence on the fortunes of corporations.

 

[Absolutego]

Does anyone else think this seems like DNC/Clinton plot? Bernie, Biden, and Warren aka the three Democratic frontrunners going down in one week seems like one hell of a coincidence.

People ITT have espoused many reasons why this is a bad way to try and address excessive corporate influence in government via lobbying, but the underlying principle is popular with voters in general, especially the Democratic base. This hasn't sunk Warren's chances. Truth is, she was pre-sunk because any general face off against Trump will revolve endlessly around the Pocahontas shit and she's somehow even more of a WASPy stereotype than Hillary was, so good luck getting above-average minority turnout! And Bernie's fanbase at this point are basically cultists, so I don't think anything short of him literally dying mid-speech is going to do all that much to his numbers. You could power a few NYC Boroughs off of the rationalization wheels spinning in places like r/SandersForPresident.

I know it'd be amazingly wonderful drama and wish it would happen, but some of you guys are really reaching for reasons "Hillary's totally gonna do it, guys!"

 

[Your Weird Fetish]

You don't tax lobbyists. You publicly execute them.

Ever written your congressman?

Guess what you were doing!

 

[PlasticOwls]

The idea of lobbying sounds great until you realize how massively bloated conglomerate use the privelage to abuse the system.

This might not be the eventual solution, but it's still a start in the right direction

 

[Spastic Colon]

Ever written your congressman?

Guess what you were doing!

And I'm sure whipping out your checkbook and writing a check for $50 to their campaign will give you equal consideration against the lobbyist who can deliver a check for $50K (or a lot more). It really isn't the same thing, unless you actually think politicians are virtuous and not at all swayed by money when deciding how to vote.

 

[TFT-A9]

And I'm sure whipping out your checkbook and writing a check for $50 to their campaign will give you equal consideration against the lobbyist who can deliver a check for $50K (or a lot more). It really isn't the same thing, unless you actually think politicians are virtuous and not at all swayed by money when deciding how to vote.

Politicians are corrupt. Also, politicians are virtuous enough to decide how this would be applied in a fair fashion.

 

[Sīn the Moon Daddy]

And I'm sure whipping out your checkbook and writing a check for $50 to their campaign will give you equal consideration against the lobbyist who can deliver a check for $50K (or a lot more). It really isn't the same thing, unless you actually think politicians are virtuous and not at all swayed by money when deciding how to vote.

Oh you don't have to be rich. You just have to make sure that the right eyes see the right information at the right time- which admittedly takes considerable skill.

 

[Y2K Baby]

The idea of lobbying sounds great until you realize how massively bloated conglomerate use the privelage to abuse the system.

This might not be the eventual solution, but it's still a start in the right direction

Bruh, you just posted cringe.

 

[Your Weird Fetish]

It's not that corporate lobbying is some universally good thing. It's that the measures proposed to curb corrupt relationships between special interest groups and the government would probably hinder that far less than it would hinder legitimate lobbying. The corrupt ones can always just go to undercover bribes. However they can use these proposed regulations against smaller, weaker, poorer groups.

 

[Sheryl Nome]

The idea of lobbying sounds great until you realize how massively bloated conglomerate use the privelage to abuse the system.

This might not be the eventual solution, but it's still a start in the right direction

No its not, its literally unconstitutional

You fucking spergs on here whining about "Whaaa, people have TOO MUCH SPEECH. LESS SPEECH. WE NEED LESS SPEECH"

 

[Your Weird Fetish]

Part of the issue is that due to human nature takings its course, when someone says "lobbyist" the average voter doesn't think "legitimate representative of a concerned group delivering said group's opinion to the people in power and mediating between them". They think of a soulless suit giving another soulless suit huge amounts of cash to let them do what they want. Which is actually already illegal. Not that it stops anyone.

 

[Soap Sniffer]

I propose taxing Elizabeth Warren's respiratory system. Myself and other deserving individuals should be getting some of that oxygen.

 

[Arctic Fox]

Shrinking the role of the government in economy is as much about removing a bludgeon from the hands of corporate juggernauts as anything. Wal-mart can afford to have lawyers on staff to navigate their way through all these regulations. Your mom and pop store can't.

And many regulations that effect multi billion dollar corporate giants don't effect mom and pop stores.
Taxes on income exceeding millions per month doesn't hurt mom and pop.
Maybe if these greedy fucks actually supported the local economy and people instead of outsourcing, I'd actually have some sympathy. But many don't, so I don't care about them being taxed and regulated, and neither should anyone.

Want to get rid of the corporate shit? The anti-trust laws should be enforced, and outsourcing should be curbed.

 

[Your Weird Fetish]

Taxes on income exceeding millions per month doesn't hurt mom and pop.

Taxes on small businesses are pretty crushing actually and guess who can't afford to have a permanent staff of tax lawyers?

 

[Sneed's Feed And Seed]

She should sincerely neck herself

All she has to do is cross a Clinton.

 

[Arctic Fox]

Taxes on small businesses are pretty crushing actually and guess who can't afford to have a permanent staff of tax lawyers?

What's the tax rate for small businesses in your area? Because we were discussing mom and pop shops. And I said, taxes on income exceedings millions a god damn month, aren't going to hurt the local corner store.
So what businesses do you mean? Resteraunts, auto shops, home supply or general stores?

 

[Your Weird Fetish]

You'd be surprised how creatively income can be defined.

I'll admit though that the small businesses I have first hand knowledge of involved a lot of government contracting which is kind of a different ball game. I just don't see why they'd want to screw anyone else any less.

 

[Stoneheart]

that clown world meme gets more and more reality...

 

[Arctic Fox]

You'd be surprised how creatively income can be defined.

I'll admit though that the small businesses I have first hand knowledge of involved a lot of government contracting which is kind of a different ball game. I just don't see why they'd want to screw anyone else any less.

Uncle Sam will stick his hand in your shirt and twist your tits until they're purple, that's just what he does, but if the proposed tit-twisting only effects big companies like Amazon or Google, I'm for it.
Some regulations, like for example food safety requirements, effect some businesses regardless of size. As an example, McDonalds chain resteraunts, and the local diner, will have to follow the same rules. To ensure food is properly prepared and there aren't rats, bugs and other shit contaminated things. McDonald's can more easily afford to do this than the local diner. Should the diner be cut slack because they're a smaller enterprise?

 

[Duke Nukem]

She’s an idiot, focus on reversing citizens united. That won’t happen because Congress is a joke.

Them bribes ain't gonna pay themselves, holmes. Gotta keep a steady supply of campaign funds nearby too, so you can keep your job.

 

[AlexJonesGotMePregnant]

Uncle Sam will stick his hand in your shirt and twist your tits until they're purple, that's just what he does, but if the proposed tit-twisting only effects big companies like Amazon or Google, I'm for it.
Some regulations, like for example food safety requirements, effect some businesses regardless of size. As an example, McDonalds chain resteraunts, and the local diner, will have to follow the same rules. To ensure food is properly prepared and there aren't rats, bugs and other shit contaminated things. McDonald's can more easily afford to do this than the local diner. Should the diner be cut slack because they're a smaller enterprise?

One of the problems with this is that it helps to entrench existing businesses in place while stymying competition. Today's large corps may end up reducing profits temporarily, but any up-and-coming competitors suddenly have an even higher hurdle to overcome to even reasonably compete. They'll pay their lobbying fees/taxes/whatever but continue working to get the government's blessing on pushing out any competition that they can.