Monthly Archives: July 2017

President Donald Trump and the Republican-controlled Congress have laudably made passing tax reform real tax reform, not just shuffling money from one group to another a top priority. Now, however, some supply-side economics skeptics are open to the possibility of taxing free speech a constitutional right to fill Washingtons coffers.

As you read this, the Big Six are meeting to discuss which deductions to keep oreliminate, and Ways and Means Committee Chair Kevin Brady must quell these whispers of taxing advertising. Imposing such a levy would trample on our countrys liberty and values, setting a dangerous precedent for further constitutional breaches in the foreseeable future.

As substantial pay-forssuch as the border adjustment tax begin to fall out of the publics favor, some in Congress have begun to look at provisions from Dave Camps 2014 tax reform proposal as a blueprint for replacement. Camps proposal would have changed the tax treatment of advertising from a normal, 100 percent deductible business expense to one that is only 50 percent deductible, with the rest being amortized over the course of a decade.

Self-proclaimed liberty-loving conservatives whoare prepared to advocate for such a provision need to reflect on American history after all, what did we fight the American Revolution over?

Perhaps the biggest boiling point for the then-British colonists was the Stamp Act of 1765, which imposed an advertising levy of two shillings for every ad, among other printed material, no matter its circulation or cost. The provision was wildly unpopular so much so that the colonists engaged in mob violence to intimidate stamp-tax distributorsinto resigning, forcing the British Parliament to repeal it just a year later.

The principles and rallying cries that were brought on from the Stamp Act's introduction led to the colonists' rising in armed rebellion against their mother country a decade later.

The Continental Army won that war, and when they formed their new country they made sure to prevent the government from getting in the way of the freedom to advertise, as per the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press."

This is a law and precedent that has been abided by for centuries. Aside from some exceptions related to false and misleading content, the federal government has always respected the constitutional mandate to leave advertising alone. That's why the Supreme Court case Valentine v. Chrestensen (1942) was overturned the bench's declaration that "the Constitution imposes no restraint on the government as to the regulation of 'purely commercial advertising'" was 100 percent unconstitutional.

Now Congress wants to limit free speech by regulating the First Amendment one of our country's core founding principles as an excuse to extort more wealth from American businesses' pocketbooks? Camp's 50-50 proposal would treat advertising like an asset, such as a machine, instead of like an expense, such as research and salaries an unprecedented, unconstitutional move. (go to page 2 to continue reading)

Continued here:
Republicans Toy with a Misguided Tax on the First Amendment ... - LifeZette

The Senate has blocked the first amendment to the bill to replace and repeal Obamacare.

Nine Republicans crossed party lines and voted against it.

The wide-ranging proposal by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell erased the law's tax penalties on people not buying insurance, and made cuts to Medicaid.

This came hours after the Senate voted to proceed with the debate on the Republican bill.

The vote was 51-50 after Vice President Mike Pence cast the tiebreaking vote.

Senator John McCain delivered a crucial vote in his first trip to the Senate floor since being diagnosed with brain cancer.

"I want to thank Senator John McCain, very brave man. He made a tough trip to get here and vote, so we want to thank Senator McCain and all of the Republicans. We passed it without one Democrat vote," said President Donald Trump.

"Lets trust each other. Let's return to regular order," McCain said. "We've been spinning our wheels on too many important issues because we keep trying to find a way to win without help from across the aisle."

Meanwhile, Trump held a campaign-style rally, where he celebrated the vote to proceed.

He told the crowd we're now one step closer to ending what he calls the Obamacare nightmare.

See the rest here:
Senate blocks first amendment to bill to repeal and replace Affordable Care Act - NY1

The Third Circuit recently joined the growing consensus of courts recognizing that the First Amendment protects the act of recording police officers conducting their official duties in public. In Fields v. City of Philadelphia, F.3d , 2017 WL 2884391 (3d Cir. July 7, 2017), two individuals brought claims against the City of Philadelphia and certain police officers for violating their First Amendment rights to record public police activity.

Amanda Geraci, a member of a police watchdog group, attended an anti-fracking protest at the Pennsylvania Convention Center in September 2012. When Geraci attempted to record the police arresting a protestor, an officer pushed her and pinned her to a pillar for over a minute, thus preventing her from observing or recording the arrest. Geraci did not interfere with any police activity. She was not arrested or cited.

In a consolidated case involving a similar issue, Richard Fields, a Temple University student, was on a public sidewalk when he observed police officers breaking up a house party in September 2013. The nearest police officer was 15 feet away from him. Using an iPhone, Fields took a photo of the incident. When Fields refused to obey an officers order for him to leave the area, the officer arrested and detained him, confiscated his phone, and opened several videos and photos on Fields phone. All charges against Fields were eventually dropped. According to Fields and Geraci, neither intended to share their recordingsthey merely wanted to record the police activity.

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania dismissed the plaintiffs First Amendment claims. Although the existence of the First Amendment right to record police activity was not in dispute, the Courton its owndeclined to create a new First Amendment right for citizens to photograph officers when they have no expressive purpose such as challenging police actions.

The Third Circuit reversed, noting that the District Courts focus on expressive intent ignore[d] that the value of the recordings may not be immediately obvious. The First Amendment protects actual photos, videos, and recordings, and for this protection to have meaning the Amendment must also protect the act of creating the material. It reiterated that this case is not about people attempting to create art with police as their subjects. It is about recording police officers performing their official duties.

The Third Circuits reasoning is not novel. Several other circuit courts have reached the same conclusion. Traditionally, and as the text of the Constitution suggests, the First Amendments protections extend to speech, press, assembly, the right to petition, and religion. But recording police activity does not seem to fit squarely into any of these categories.

Without expressly relying on any of the five traditional First Amendment protections, the Court held that, subject to reasonable restrictions, the First Amendment protects the publics right of access to information about their officials public activities. At first blush, it appears that the Court has created a new First Amendment right of access to information. However, the Courts reasoning shows that the basis for this right is the freedom of press, and a recognition that in todays world, everyday citizens play a role in delivering the news.

The Court writes that to record is to see and hear more accurately. Recordings also facilitate discussion because of the ease in which they can be widely distributed via different forms of media. Accordingly, recording police activity in public falls squarely within the First Amendment right of access to information. As no doubt the press has the right, so does the public. The Court continues, [t]he publics creation of this content also complements the role of the news media. In addition to complementing the role of the traditional press, private recordings have improved professional reporting, as video content generated by witnesses and bystanders has become a common component of news programming.

Thus, Fields is a tacit recognition that in the age of electronics, the press is so much more than traditional broadcast news and newspapers. Today, everyone with a smartphone is essentially a member of the press and news stories are now just as likely to be broken by a blogger at her computer as a reporter at a major newspaper. Based on this expansive view of the press, the right to record police activity extends not only to the traditional press, but to the modern pressthat is, the public.

Read more here:
First Amendment Protects Right to Record Police Activity, Third Circuit Holds - JD Supra (press release)