It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
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.
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
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.