Tax Political Advertising

by muon

If we learned anything from this election, it's that obscene amounts of money that could have been better spent elsewhere went to put ads on TV, radio and the Internet, to put mounds of junk ads into our mailboxes, place billboards and signs all over our towns and highways, and of course, shower us with lovely, unceasing robocalls. Shedon Adelson alone spent $57.7 million on super-PACs.

Everyone says we ought to curb campaign spending, but it's not going to happen, not as long as the politicians on the receiving end of the funds, or who benefit from super-PAC support, are the ones who need to figure out how to reform the way they campaign.

So, while they're spinning their wheels, let's try a stop-gap measure. Impose a federal tax on all political advertising that supports federal candidates, pans their opponents, or where money changes hands so that a political view can be expressed to, say, more than 500 people at once. This would include advertising by lobbying groups trying to influence legislation.  State taxes could be imposed on advertising for state office candidates or lobbyists trying to influence state legislation, like all the pro-fracking ads on TV. I'd even be make an exception for bumper stickers and campaign buttons, so regular citizens could express their views without being taxed. (But not lawn signs, which are as ugly as billboards. You want a lawn sign, fine, but you ought to at least pay something to your town for ruining the scenery.)

I think I'd mind the ads and billboards and robocalls a smidge less if I knew a percentage of the megabucks spent would be used to, say, fund election reforms, or help pay off the deficit.

The 7-Figure Donor

by Ruth A. Sheets

This morning I heard a story that, had it not been NPR, I would have thought I was listening to a “Saturday Night Live” sketch.  A seven-figure donor to a super PAC complained about the level of criticism he has received since his check was written.  He was startled that folks might object to his contribution.

One can’t help but wonder where Mr. Vandersloot has been.  He intends to help to buy an election and he worries people will find out and that some might not be pleased.  He claims he has lost business and has even received some death threats. 

I certainly think the death threats, if he has received them, are appalling and wrong in every way.  Losing business, though, that is fair.  Mr. V. is clearly using his profits to get politically involved.  It seems to me that an effective way for citizens to object to a particular donation is to stop using the product or service of the donor.

The wealthy, the 1%, have been accused of being “out of touch.”  Yes, Mr. V. is out of touch.  I can’t help but wonder at his naivete.  Does he really believe his money entitles him to do whatever he wants to do, and that no one will respond?  Of course he does. 

With the “Citizens United” ruling by the Supreme Court calling money speech, how can the wealthy not try to make their opinion more weighty than that of the average citizen?  Isn’t more money more speech?

In their attempt to be “fair,” NPR actually found people to support Mr. V.’s position that no one should have to know about his donation.  The Koch brothers were sympathetically cited as people maligned for making large contributions.  Those Koch brothers used their funds to spread lies and half-truths against Democrats in Wisconsin and other states.  Of course, not under their own name, but through a Super PAC that is not to be held accountable for whatever they put out there.

It is obscene that anyone should feel entitled to contribute millions of dollars to influence elections, with or without their names being attached to the donation.  Such large money contributions, speech or not, shouldn’t be able to buy candidates.

When people contribute to Super PACs or any other political influence machine, they are buying a service, and the PACs should then be taxed as a service provider.  I am thinking of oh, 40% or so.  That’s higher than the wealthy are paying now in taxes, so I think it is a way to help the deficit and to limit huge donations.  Oh wait, Congress would never pass such a law since they have been bought by the very Super PACs that would be taxed.  Darn!