-
If "Money is Speech," then isn't any taxation a violation of the First Amendment?
There was a political cartoon on the last page of the Op-Ed section of the Los Angeles Times" today. In it, cartoonist Mark Alan Stamaty had one panel with the statement, "MONEY=SPEECH! MORE MONEY=MORE SPEECH! LESS=LESS!" This was in the context of the recent Los Angeles mayoral race, but I've heard the "money is speech" argumenta few times in the past.
If you do accept this premise, which I don't, isn't any form of taxation, fees, etc, imposed by any local, county, state or federal agency, then in violation of the First Amendment? And if this is consiered to be true, why shouldn't all 50 state governments be subject to a class-action lawsuit, for both actual & punitive damages, for violating both the civil and First Amendment rights of all their citizens? I'm just puzzled about the on-going debate over this phrase.
PhaedrusZ
-
Re: If "Money is Speech," then isn't any taxation a violation of the First Amendment?
Your mistake is assuming that a constitutional right can not be subject to any regulation. The First Amendment is not immune to regulation. You can't libel, slander, shout "fire" in a crowded theater, incite to riot, go nude in public, or use hate speech these days and attempt to wrap yourself in the first amendment, etc. Same with the other constitutional rights... gun ownership/use/possession is regulated, etc.
I don't know what taxation on speech you are referring to. What "money is speech" usually refers to is political speech and campaign financing. Currently, the most recent McCain-Feingold "reform" of campaign financing restricts and regulates campaign spending and advertising and thus political speech. In my opinion, the distictions between "soft" and "hard" campaign money are silly and have led (once again, as was the case before the last "reform") to essentially unregulated soft money spending. A much better reform would be to remove all distinctions and restrictions.... spend all you want.... EXCEPT have full and complete public discloser of who the money is purportedly coming from. Even this simple requirement may be a challenge to democrats who fail to file such reports (until after the elections....for example Hillary in her Senate race). All contributions should be immediately posted on the internet for all to see. I believe exposing contributions to the bright light of public scrutiny is the best way to prevent corruption rather than creating more laws to tempt politicians into using subterfuge to shield their questionable backers. Big money payoffs and bribes from special interests are neutralized when the public is fully informed.
-
Re: If "Money is Speech," then isn't any taxation a violation of the First Amendment?
I believe his point is, if money is speech, then taking money out of your pocket is taking the right and ability of speech out of your pocket.
Most of us work nearly six months a year to pay taxes. That suppossedly is "tax freedom day." Another four months probably to pay the rent/mortgage. The rest is car entertainment and food.
What's left to pay for a commercial, or a newspaper ad, or the like.
Not much.
Luckily with blogs, email, and web sites - very little money needs to be passed around to get the message around. I think we are only beginning to see the strength of the internet in politics.
I have been playing with iMovie, Garageband, and my iSight camera - and I am pretty surprised at the level of sophistication I can achieve. Pretty soon, you can make your own commercials (note the moveon.org commercial competition that basically everyone has probably glimpsed at no matter where your political standing is.)
Then you can look forward to some censorship - er - I mean "regulation" - on political speech on the net. Good luck on that.
-
Re: If "Money is Speech," then isn't any taxation a violation of the First Amendment?
Ok, if you pay taxes you have less money left to spend on newspaper and TV advertising... so all taxes (income, sales, gift, excise, use, inheritence...) should be banned. Novel arguement. Might as well argue that limiting your money violates your right to own as many guns as you'd want or how many abortions you could afford... I don't think the tax protestors have tried these chains of reasoning yet.
-
Re: If "Money is Speech," then isn't any taxation a violation of the First Amendment?
Problem with opposing ALL txes is that iit simply cannot work. We need and want certain services from our contry/community/town (defense, roads, water, sewer, education, etc.) they require money. One of the ways this isdone is through taxation.
So, eliminating taxation impedes your rights because it impedes "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"
-
Re: If "Money is Speech," then isn't any taxation a violation of the First Amendment?
All of those gov't supplied functions except defense i.e. roads, water, sewer, education etc. are totally possible and arguably more efficiently done via the private sector. In fact, historically speaking, the first 'good' inter-city roads were privately owned toll roads ! It is only 150 years worth of precedent (basically starting with New York's Erie Canal), the CSEA/NEA, and a desire by liberal gov't to maintain as much gov't control as possible over as many things as possible that has evolved today's status quo. However, as you point out, in order to keep financing the systems now in place continued high taxation is necessary.
As to taxation, it is arguable that the federal gov't does NOT have a constitutional right to impose an income tax (only excise taxes and tariffs), that the 13th amendment is unconstitutional, and that any need for funds by the federal gov't should be apportioned to the states and not directly to citizens. However, for the past 90 years or so, anybody trying to raise this issue generally wound up behind bars serving time for tax evasion !
To the 'money is speech' argument, I would agree that this is partially true. The REAL money behind political speech though appears to have been the money used to purchase the NY Times, the CBS network etc. which for decades has allowed political positions supported by media owners to get lots of free coverage, while denying as much coverage as possible to alternate political positions. It is only in the last 20 years or so that big money investors with alternate viewpoints like Rupert Murdock have chosen to invest in media outlets of their own.
As to this thread's contention that 'money is speech' in the sense of direct expenditures = media coverage/public platform, if that were true it would be damn near impossible that anyone today would know who Barack Obama is !
-
Re: If "Money is Speech," then isn't any taxation a violation of the First Amendment?
^ One slight correction - a constitutional amendment can't be unconstitutional.
-
Re: If "Money is Speech," then isn't any taxation a violation of the First Amendment?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deogol
^ One slight correction - a constitutional amendment can't be unconstitutional.
Well, if it was properly voted on by the required number of states and properly ratified, that is true. However, there is a substantial amount of evidence pointing to the fact that the original 13th amendment in particular was NOT properly voted on by the required number of states, and that the amendment was thus not 'ratified' in a constitutional manner. Many wish that it had been and some claim to have proof that it was ...
from ..........
" WHAT IF? (Implications if Restored)
If the missing 13th Amendment were restored, "special interests" and "immunities" might be rendered unconstitutional. The prohibition against "honors" (privileges) would compel the entire government to operate under the same laws as the citizens of this nation. Without their current personal immunities (honors), our judges and I.R.S. agents would be unable to abuse common citizens without fear of legal liability. If this 13th Amendment were restored, our entire government would have to conduct itself according to the same standards of decency, respect, law, and liability as the rest of the nation. If this Amendment and the term "honor" were applied today, our government's ability to systematically coerce and abuse the public would be all but eliminated.
Imagine.
Imagine!
A government without special privileges or immunities. How could we describe it? It would be ... almost like ... a government ... of the people ... by the people ... for the people!
Imagine: a government ... whose members were truly accountable to the public; a government that could not systematically exploit its own people!
It's unheard of ... it's never been done before. Not ever in the entire history of the world.
Bear in mind that Senator George Mitchell of Maine and the National Archives concede this 13th Amendment was proposed by Congress in 1810. However, they explain that there were seventeen states when Congress proposed the "title of nobility" Amendment; that ratification required the support of thirteen states, but since only twelve states supported the Amendment, it was not ratified. The Government Printing Office agrees; it currently prints copies of the Constitution of the United States which include the "title of nobility" Amendment as proposed, but un-ratified.
Even if this 13th Amendment were never ratified, even if Dodge and Dunn's research or reasoning is flawed or incomplete, it would still be an extraordinary story.
Can you imagine, can you understand how close we came to having a political paradise, right here on Earth? Do you realize what an extraordinary gift our forebears tried to bequeath us? And how close we came?
One vote. One state's vote.
The federal government concedes that twelve states voted to ratify this Amendment between 1810 and 1812. But they argue that ratification require thirteen states, so the Amendment lays stillborn in history, unratified for lack of a just one more state's support.
One vote.(snip)
SIGNIFICANCE OF REMOVAL
To create the present oligarchy (rule by lawyers) which we now endure, the lawyers first had to remove the 13th "titles of nobility" Amendment that might otherwise have kept them in check. In fact, it was not until after the Civil War and after the disappearance of this 13th Amendment, that American bar associations began to appear and exercise political power.
Since the unlawful deletion of the 13th Amendment, the newly developing bar associations began working diligently to create a system wherein lawyers took on a title of privilege and nobility as "Esquires" and received the "honor" of offices and positions (like district attorney or judge) that only lawyers may now hold. By virtue of these titles, honors, and special privileges, lawyers have assumed political and economic advantages over the majority of U.S. citizens. Through these privileges, they have nearly established a two-tiered citizenship in this nation where a majority may vote, but only a minority (lawyers) may run for political office. This twotiered citizenship is clearly contrary to Americans' political interests, the nation's economic welfare, and the Constitution's egalitarian spirit.
The significance of this missing 13th Amendment and its deletion from the Constitution is this: Since the amendment was never lawfully nullified, it is still in full force and effect and is the Law of the land. If public support could be awakened, this missing Amendment might provide a legal basis to challenge many existing laws and court decisions previously made by lawyers who were unconstitutionally elected or appointed to their positions of power; it might even mean the removal of lawyers from our current government system. (snip)
David Dodge, however, says one more state did ratify, and he claims he has the evidence to prove it." See
On the other hand the 16th amendment, which is the ONLY basis for for the federal government's ability to impose an income tax on individuals, was arguably not properly ratified under constitutional procedures. To this day, the only legal point in regard to the validity of the 16th amendment is a proclamation by then Secretary of State Knox that the 16th amendment is "in effect" (he never stated that the amendment was ratified). There is a plethora of research and info on the 16th amendment, with a good starting point being .
~
-
Re: If "Money is Speech," then isn't any taxation a violation of the First Amendment?
Well, wouldn't the Supreme Court be the final arbiter of whether a Constitutional amendment is Constitutional? I say that as a supposition of logic - I haven't looked it up.
Arguably, the private sector would build roads. Also arguably, they would not. I enjoy the interstate system. You can use convoluted reasoning to show how much better it would be if built by the private sector, but I don't believe it would've happened.
And I've seen developers build roads in subdivisions that were built without regulation. Those are not nice roads. Having built them poorly, there's nothing to indicate that the developers would maintain them well. Generally, they deed them over to the government, who then have to spend taxpayer money at some point to rip them up and do them right. Those are side streets and collector streets, not even the arterials, not even the roads and highways linking communities. The privatization of highway lanes in California, to look another direction, is not terribly popular there and has not caught on like wildfire.
I respect the fact, if it is a fact, that the first "good" inter-city roads were private. I'm looking at more recent examples that are more discouraging.
-
Re: If "Money is Speech," then isn't any taxation a violation of the First Amendment?
Quote:
Originally Posted by myssi
Ok, if you pay taxes you have less money left to spend on newspaper and TV advertising... so all taxes (income, sales, gift, excise, use, inheritence...) should be banned. Novel arguement. Might as well argue that limiting your money violates your right to own as many guns as you'd want or how many abortions you could afford... I don't think the tax protestors have tried these chains of reasoning yet.
Re: the tax protesters, IMHO, I think they would be much better off filing a class-action lawsuit against the federal government under current discrimination laws. I.e., because the government is prosecuting them, but is not making a "good faith" effort to enforce federal law against illegal immigration, the tax protesters are being denied "equal treatment under the law," and have therefore been discriminated against by the federal government. They should therefore receive monetary compensation, which ironically, would have to be provided from tax revenues.
PhaedrusZ
-
Re: If "Money is Speech," then isn't any taxation a violation of the First Amendment?
Quote:
Well, wouldn't the Supreme Court be the final arbiter of whether a Constitutional amendment is Constitutional? I say that as a supposition of logic - I haven't looked it up.
This is uncharted territory as far as I have been able to determine. In theory, if the required number of states vote in favor of a new amendment, and if that amendment is duly ratified, then it becomes part of the constitution i.e. it is constitutional by definition.
Quote:
Arguably, the private sector would build roads. Also arguably, they would not. I enjoy the interstate system. You can use convoluted reasoning to show how much better it would be if built by the private sector, but I don't believe it would've happened.
I agree that if the private sector was in charge of deciding where to invest money building super-highway toll roads, that they probably would NOT have built many such roads in Arkansas or Wyoming. On the other hand, they probably would have built more such roads in New York and California. The motivating factor would of course have been return on investment i.e. having enough toll paying motorists wanting to use the super-highway toll roads to justify the necessary investment. On the other hand the government decides to build super-highways for other reasons i.e political pork barrel patronage (you should see the interstate which was built through Arkansas during the 90's - and which has maybe 10 cars per mile of traffic).
As to the developers and neighborhood streets, the conditions for shoddy construction are exactly as you stated ... a legal requirement that the streets be deeded to the municipality. Thus from the developer's standpoint the cost of street construction is a 'necessary evil' in order to obtain local zoning and construction permit approvals, with absolutely no direct return on investment.
-
Re: If "Money is Speech," then isn't any taxation a violation of the First Amendment?
The idea that privatization will provide better roads, better sewers, intracommunity, extracommunity, and intercommunity, is illogical and not historically supported. That's just my opinon. Of course. Everything here is just all our opinions.
I'll agree that there are areas where the private sector flourishes for the betterment of the people with fewer government controls. There are also areas that are prone to abuse or neglect where government oversight and reasonable regulation helps protect the safety and welfare of the public. The trick of effective government, of course, is to establish a reasonable balance in finding and recognizing those areas and interests.
Back to roads. C'mon, Mel. That supposition that privatization would be better is simply against human nature, national experience, human relations, and common sense. It's parroting a libertarian line nicely, but that doesn't mean it's well-grounded.
-
Re: If "Money is Speech," then isn't any taxation a violation of the First Amendment?
Quote:
The idea that privatization will provide better roads, better sewers, intracommunity, extracommunity, and intercommunity, is illogical and not historically supported. That's just my opinon. Of course. Everything here is just all our opinions.
This entire issue hinges on two suppositions ... that one person's/community's 'better' might be another person's/community's 'excessive', and that costs should be assessed on a per person/per mile/per gallon basis versus being homogenized into an incomprehensible gov't budget which effectively subsidizes costs for low income people at the expense of higher income people. Historically, I would point to the initial 'private sector' development of railroads as an example of investment decisions being made (i.e. railroad routes and number of tracks chosen) based on local needs for transportation and therefore ROI. It was only after gov't regulation required the railroads to construct/operate non-profitable routes to further a non-railroad business agenda (i.e. rail access for small town residents, hoped for economic development of certain towns/cities etc.) that the original 'free market' railroad system began to degenerate into the Amtrak mess we have today.
-
Re: If "Money is Speech," then isn't any taxation a violation of the First Amendment?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melonie
Historically, I would point to the initial 'private sector' development of railroads as an example of investment decisions being made (i.e. railroad routes and number of tracks chosen) based on local needs for transportation and therefore ROI.
Not comparable to today's road infrastructure. There was much fewer railroads than there are roads, there was no personal motorized transportation, and the railroads themselves were built on subsidies consisting of government-sponsored surveys, government mandated rights-of-way, and the use of slave (in the South) and near-slave labor.
It's so easy to say "government regulation botched the railroads" when, in fact, it was largely the static business model of the railroads and failing to recognize the impact of cars, trucks, and roads on their business and refusing to diversify into those areas. It's been a common and often fatal theme of businesses that feel they have a protected societal status.
This is getting way off topic anyway. I don't hinge my statements on any suppositions. I believe my assertions are clear on their face.
-
Re: If "Money is Speech," then isn't any taxation a violation of the First Amendment?
Quote:
t's so easy to say "government regulation botched the railroads" when, in fact, it was largely the static business model of the railroads and failing to recognize the impact of cars, trucks, and roads on their business and refusing to diversify into those areas. It's been a common and often fatal theme of businesses that feel they have a protected societal status.
On the other hand, it's extremely difficult to compete with another business which is receiving massive gov't subsidies .... i.e. billions of dollars worth of tax money built and maintain the roads that competing trucking companies rely on to be in business in the first place, whereas railroads had to spend their own money to build and maintain their rails.
At any rate this is a moot point because, with the possible exception of a small part of education, reverting from gov't operation to the private sector is a political impossibility.
-
Re: If "Money is Speech," then isn't any taxation a violation of the First Amendment?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melonie
...However, there is a substantial amount of evidence pointing to the fact that the original 13th amendment in particular was NOT properly voted on by the required number of states, and that the amendment was thus not 'ratified' in a constitutional manner. Many wish that it had been and some claim to have proof that it was ...
from
http://w3f.com/patriots/13/13th-10.html ..........
This appears to be the website of the infamous "Patriots" organization that has been finding pseudo-legal ways of avoiding payment of income tax and that has been under attack by the IRS for years. One way has been to consider that wages is not income, etc. The group has been playing those games for years. So most anything from their site is going to be quite controversial.
-
Re: If "Money is Speech," then isn't any taxation a violation of the First Amendment?
Actually the 16th Amendment which gives congress power to lay and collect
taxes on incomes was never properly ratified and only foreign sourced income is taxable you can read all about it in the link below how Joe Banister a former
IRS agent was acquitted on charges that he attempted to defraud the government on tax invasion .
You also read more about Joe Banister here.