Out of State Contributions

[Rain Man]

So we have an election tomorrow in Colorado, and one of the issues on the ballot is a massive tax increase to give money to K-12 schools. It's got all sorts of groundbreaking features, such as:

a) the largest state tax increase in Colorado history
b) the introduction of an income tax to fund schools, on top of property taxes
c) the introduction of a progressive income tax in Colorado that taxes higher incomes at a higher rate

Obviously, it's pretty controversial.

What really annoys me is that we heard recently that the mayor of New York (Bloomberg) gave $1 million to the campaign to pass this tax, and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation gave $1 million to the campaign to pass this tax.

They're both promoting it as education reform, and whatever. The reason doesn't matter.

But why do we allow out-of-state interests who will not pay the tax to get involved and help get the new tax passed? I've got some rich guy in New York and some rich guy in Washington saying, "Well, hey. Let's get those people in Colorado to pay more taxes." Is there some rationale for doing this that I don't understand?

[mlyonsd]

Who is 'the campaign' you refer to? I'm guessing not one individual candidate.

[Garcia Bronco]

These are State Constitional Amendments and I voted no on all of them. It was bad enough to legalize pot with the State Constition, writing tax rates there is even dumber.

[Direckshun]

The Constitutional reason was determined by the SCOTUS: money is considered speech, as a result blocking spending in state elections on account of something like "you don't live in this state" constitutes an unconstitutional restriction of free speech.

I am of the opinion that money is not speech, and shouldn't be constitutionally protected like speech. I am of the opinion that only state residents should spend money on state elections.

[Prison Bitch]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

I am of the opinion that money is not speech, and shouldn't be constitutionally protected like speech. I am of the opinion that only state residents should spend money on state elections.

So you don't believe the "full faith & credit" clause of the Constitution, nor the "commerce clause", has any validity?

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by Rain Man

So we have an election tomorrow in Colorado, and one of the issues on the ballot is a massive tax increase to give money to K-12 schools. It's got all sorts of groundbreaking features, such as:

a) the largest state tax increase in Colorado history
b) the introduction of an income tax to fund schools, on top of property taxes
c) the introduction of a progressive income tax in Colorado that taxes higher incomes at a higher rate

Obviously, it's pretty controversial.

What really annoys me is that we heard recently that the mayor of New York (Bloomberg) gave $1 million to the campaign to pass this tax, and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation gave $1 million to the campaign to pass this tax.

They're both promoting it as education reform, and whatever. The reason doesn't matter.

But why do we allow out-of-state interests who will not pay the tax to get involved and help get the new tax passed? I've got some rich guy in New York and some rich guy in Washington saying, "Well, hey. Let's get those people in Colorado to pay more taxes." Is there some rationale for doing this that I don't understand?

The rationale is nothing more than:

Progressives being meddler's in everyone's affairs while screaming to be left alone on pot, sex or abortions. They love uniformity. So this is just the start of changing each state on a state basis while they also nationalize education. Eventually it will be fully controlled by the central govt for education central planning.

It's called the creeping socialism. But I find Gate's also doing this to be disgusting. Natch, I'd expect Bloomberg to be onboard. This is evidence that big business LOVES socialism. And why ed-centralization via state's rights without this kind of meddling is critical for freedom from them and their central planners.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

The Constitutional reason was determined by the SCOTUS: money is considered speech, as a result blocking spending in state elections on account of something like "you don't live in this state" constitutes an unconstitutional restriction of free speech.

I am of the opinion that money is not speech, and shouldn't be constitutionally protected like speech. I am of the opinion that only state residents should spend money on state elections.

Well, this is a complete misunderstanding of that ruling which was on national elections. This is an issue of federalism aka jurisdiction. In this case, it violates a representative system in that jurisdiction.

[Rain Man]

Originally Posted by mlyonsd

Who is 'the campaign' you refer to? I'm guessing not one individual candidate.

It's basically the State Department of Education and all of the public school systems, along with others who would receive money. The government agencies aren't allowed to campaign, so it's their "friends of" groups.

[Rain Man]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

The Constitutional reason was determined by the SCOTUS: money is considered speech, as a result blocking spending in state elections on account of something like "you don't live in this state" constitutes an unconstitutional restriction of free speech.

I am of the opinion that money is not speech, and shouldn't be constitutionally protected like speech. I am of the opinion that only state residents should spend money on state elections.

Yeah, this just kills me. Other than setting a precedent, there's nothing about this that impacts Gates and Bloomberg. I understand and even somewhat appreciate their interest in public policy, but they should be doing it in their own communities, not mine. I bet they're the two largest funders of this.

[Prison Bitch]

Originally Posted by Rain Man

but they should be doing it in their own communities, not mine.

Why? People in other states affect you all the time with their Presidential votes.

[Rain Man]

Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco

These are State Constitional Amendments and I voted no on all of them. It was bad enough to legalize pot with the State Constition, writing tax rates there is even dumber.

I voted for the marijuana taxes because I can't believe it's even a question. If someone is selling lumber, they get taxed. If someone is selling cupcakes, they get taxed. If the potheads want marijuana to be available for retail sale, it should face retail taxes.

My only question, which I've never heard the answer to, is whether the basic sales tax is a given and this is an additional sin tax. It doesn't matter to me since I think it should be sin taxed, but I haven't heard an explanation.

And the wholesale tax, as I understand it, is somewhat of an impact tax. Having a bunch of marijuana floating around is going to create some problems and having tax money from producers to mitigate it is better than raising my property tax or income tax to do it.

On the school tax, it's just excessive. Between this and property taxes, my personal bill for the public school system would range between $300 and $500 PER MONTH, depending on my company income. Add to that the precedents of a new income tax and a progressive tax, and it's a non-starter for me. They got greedy by asking too much.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by Prison Bitch

Why? People in other states affect you all the time with their Presidential votes.

So. Doesn't make it right in a federalist representative system.

[Rain Man]

Originally Posted by Prison Bitch

Why? People in other states affect you all the time with their Presidential votes.

But that affects them, too. We all fall under the federal government, so we should all have a say.

This is a state issue in Colorado that in no way, shape, or form impacts Washington or New York. They are attempting to influence my taxes and my local schools. Stay out of my yard.

[BucEyedPea]

Well actually, PB, your claim isn't really true. Because a presidential election relates to the functions of the Executive branch in the Constitution. Those are national issues -- not local issues. So presidential votes effect people in the states on those issues. That's the way it's suppose to be. Education is not a specifically enumerated power in the Constitution for the Federal govt to be involved in -- at all. The DOE shouldn't even exist.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by Rain Man

But that affects them, too. We all fall under the federal government, so we should all have a say.

This is a state issue in Colorado that in no way, shape, or form impacts Washington or New York. They are attempting to influence my taxes and my local schools. Stay out of my yard.

'Cept we don't "all all fall under the federal government" -- only on certain things. This is still true to day--just to a much lesser extent. Remember, what Madison said, which I posted from the Federalist Papers. I think it's Federalist 45--that the state govts are to handled most things and the Federal govt but few things.