Remember That “Taxation Without Representation” Thing? It’s Happening Again

I wonder how much effect the independent voters will have on the 2016 election if they have been unable to cast their votes in the so called closed primaries ?

www.activistpost.com...

Remember That “Taxation Without Representation” Thing? It’s Happening Again
TOPICS:Constitution Nick Bernabe Tax

May 4, 2016

taxation-without-representation, By Nick Bernabe

Everybody remembers learning about one of the central rallying cries of the American Revolution: “No taxation without representation!” Yes, the settlers in early America thought the idea of being forced to pay taxes without having a say in the decision-making of their overlords was very problematic.

In particular, the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back was a small tax on tea imports on the colonies, who did not have representation in the British parliament; this led to the infamous Boston Tea Party. Seems pretty minuscule compared to today’s 74,608-page tax code, right? Fortunately for modern-day Americans, the founding fathers fixed that problem after they kicked the crown to the curb … except they didn’t.

Oops.

What I’m telling you is that taxation without representation persists today, and that it’s even worse now than when it sparked a revolution.

So let’s start with this meme I stumbled upon while surfing the interwebz yesterday:

taxation-without-representation-2I didn’t want to believe it, but it’s true. As the Independent Voter Network explains:

The practice of subsidizing major parties’ primary elections was cemented into place when the Supreme Court ruled in Bullock v. Carter, also in 1972, that parties requiring candidates to pay excessive fees to appear on a primary ballot imposed an unconstitutional burden on the candidates’ Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection. This ruling normalized the practice of having the public, not candidates or parties, pay for primary elections.

This hybrid system leaves independents in states with closed primaries dissatisfied, since they are, in some cases, forced to pay for the elections of private organizations in which they cannot, as independents, participate.

Mod Edit: Posting Work Written By Others – Please Review This Link.

When you consider all the various taxes that are levied on the public beyond just income taxes, it is pretty safe to say that we long crossed the taxation without representation barrier many moons ago. Government taxes damn near everything. Most people don't see it, as it is baked into the price, but if anyone took the time to see how much they are paying in taxes to support a bloated government bureaucracy, they'd throw a fit.

a reply to: 727Sky

Of course it is in effect today. That's how Washington DC works.

Excellent post, thank you for bringing these points up for discussion.
Where I live only Reps and Dems get to vote in the primaries so I have been thinking about this a lot lately.
It is obviously wrong and I wonder what can be done to change the law. The opposition has all the power and money.

a reply to: 727Sky


Yeah and Trump opened a lot of eyes to that.

They will be voting with a vengence.

a reply to: JohnthePhilistine

To be honest there is a can of worms here that people aren't considering. For one, the DNC and GOP are private entities and aren't beholden to constitutional law to pick their nominees. They are beholden to the rules they've setup internally within their party. Two, opening up party elections to outsiders opens up the possibility of a slew of democrats voting and skewing the results of a republican election or vice-versa. It's a tricky subject and I'm not entirely sure that changing the rules to allow independents or non-party members to vote in party elections is a good idea.

It's hard to fight election law. The libertarian party sues all the time. sometimes they win, sometimes they lose. A lot of bribes get thrown in the backpockets of judges.
Kaisch's governor race is a recent notable one where they got the libertarian candidate thrown off the ballot when the libert started polling well and the dem had tanked/pretty much out of the race.

a couple 100g bribe for what could cost 10's of millions(privately funded primaries). easy decision.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I understand and agree with what you said but I don't think the two big parties should use tax money for their private events.

a reply to: JohnthePhilistine

I'll agree with that. I think that there should be a certain threshold of money that is allowed to be spent on a campaign. This money can be raised, borrowed from the government, or donated, but once that number is reached you cannot make it go higher. Then everyone will be on equal ground. If you can't raise the money, borrow it from government (but you have to pay it back).

Then every 2 to 4 years we reevaluate what the threshold should be in regards to how inflation has effected it. Simple and takes the edge of money out of campaigning.

Our founding fathers had balls.

Now we don't even know which bathroom to pee in.

cheers

a reply to: JohnthePhilistine

They could always just register as Republican or Democrat.

Where I live only Reps and Dems get to vote in the primaries so I have been thinking about this a lot lately.
It is obviously wrong and I wonder what can be done to change the law

How is it wrong?

If you want to vote in a party's primary, register for the party. It's THEIR ballgame, not the entire US. There are usually about 8 or so people actually running that are NOT in one of the two main parties. The primary isn't a "warm up" or anything, it's for the PARTY to choose THEIR candidate. If you aren't a member of the party, why should YOU get to choose who THEY want to be their candidate?

It's like not being in the PTA, but you want to choose the PTA President? No. Sorry.

And law isn't an issue, so nothing to change. Same reason you can't pick the PTA President in the above example.

No, instead, it's the OPEN primaries that are ridiculous, where your RIVALS can have a say in who YOU (as a party) want to put forth as a candidate. THAT is true insanity.

Make sense yet?

I'll agree with that. I think that there should be a certain threshold of money that is allowed to be spent on a campaign. This money can be raised, borrowed from the government, or donated, but once that number is reached you cannot make it go higher. Then everyone will be on equal ground. If you can't raise the money, borrow it from government (but you have to pay it back). Then every 2 to 4 years we reevaluate what the threshold should be in regards to how inflation has effected it. Simple and takes the edge of money out of campaigning.

Would never work.

Lots of ways to get money to a candidate that wouldn't count in this.

We have caps now, and that doesn't seem to work. Look at a Super PAC commercial, as an example. It isn't given to the candidate, but someboy spends a million to air an ad on TV that attacks a rival candidate. Easily skirts your suggestion.

The ONLY way to truly make it equal is to so severely legislate it, that it would be almost communist in its application. (and it would require numerous pieces of legislation...that would be voted on by the very people who most benefit from the existing system).

a reply to: pianopraze

Our founding fathers had balls.

They also had slaves.

a reply to: alldaylong

Well by all means then, that should invalidate all our rights. No one needs to have a right to life, liberty, property or anything else because of that.

I hear Mohammad married on of his wives at 6, but that isn't ever included as an excuse to invalidate the entire religion, is it?

a reply to: Gazrok

We could address that by removing 503c's or whatever they're called. No more PAC's, either you promote a candidate independently and as an individual, or you work for the campaign.

I the Republicans and Democrats should just go back to picking their own candidates as the have for most of our history. This is the way all the other political parties do it in the US and it would save us the time, money and headaches of the primaries.

a reply to: MrSpad

Agreed. As a bonus it gets a lot of money out of politics because we have a shorter campaign season.

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: pianopraze

Our founding fathers had balls.

They also had slaves.

Some did. Not everyone had slaves.

a reply to: yuppa

Even ONE is one to many.