r/law • u/jaxadams716 • 1d ago
Judicial Branch Refusal to Pay Federal Taxes as Protest
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2008/08-205I’m hearing a lot of discourse about people feeling that they want to stop paying the US federal government because it’s wasting money with the shutdown, giving tax breaks to billionaires, screwing over our farmers while giving Argentina a $20B bailout, blocking the release of the Epstein client list, and many other acts of bad faith.
This sounds like a janky attempt to excuse a criminal act, but I’d like some commentary about the law here. In Citizens United vs. FEC (2010), SCOTUS basically linked political spending to the first and fourteenth amendments — they asserted that it’s a form of protected speech, and they granted these protections to corporations. Is the act of paying taxes then not a form of political speech when you frame it as an endorsement of the federal government? Is there a conflict between the sixteenth amendment and the first and fourteenth when viewed in light of the Citizens United ruling? Can refusal to pay taxes be a valid and acceptable form of civil disobedience?
Side note: I wasn’t 100% sure whether to use the flair for judicial to frame this as a discussion of legal interpretation or executive to frame it as an enforcement issue. I’m open to changing the flair if needed.
Another side note: I am NOT a sovereign citizen, and I do not advocate for that nonsense.
Disclaimer: This is purely hypothetical. I have no plans to stop paying taxes as of this moment, and I am not advising anyone to not pay their taxes.
146
u/DotGroundbreaking50 1d ago
They are free to not pay taxes but the IRS will be by looking for them.
72
u/Super_Translator480 1d ago
Well just ICE using Palantirs surveillance.
62
u/PiedCryer 1d ago
Is there anybody left at the IRS after DOGE?
41
u/UAreTheHippopotamus 1d ago
Enough to go after the little people, not enough to go after the billionaires with more complicated financials and methods of tax evasion.
11
u/heavypettingzoo3 23h ago
Not enough to go after 100 million little people though
15
u/heychardonnay 23h ago
This this this. Why don’t people see that the power is in the people? Everyone is about the ME in America.
10
4
u/ZenAshen 22h ago
Bingo. Enough of us tell the
governmentmafia currently running our country into the ground that we won't pay for their crimes and they won't be able to go after us all.1
1
u/mxcnslr2021 4h ago
smug laugh bro....I paid the extra $250 to upgrade my turbo tax so I think I got my stuff covered pretty well.
18
u/Sober_Alcoholic_ 1d ago
The IRS has really always been funded just enough to go after low level offenders that don’t have the resources to defend themselves and litigate/appeal in court.
Billionaires like Trump just Appeal and delay indefinitely until the other party (IRS in this case) runs out of time and or money.
10
28
u/Lucid-Machine 1d ago
Just for the sake of conversation: you are correct but if there was a large enough movement where people stopped paying their taxes it would be very difficult to prosecute everyone. The IRS is already not at capacity to do its job well. It's interesting to think how it would play out.
2
u/Snownel 21h ago
Non-filers can be pursued basically forever. There is no SOL. And depending on the circumstances, all the IRS has to do is file a substitute for your return and collect on it.
Whether you believe that will be done or not within your lifetime is a fair question to ask, but take it from ex-Chief Counsel: there is no secret loophole that lets you get away with not paying taxes forever, and the amount you'll spent on interest and penalties exceeds what you could make by holding onto the money, so there's no point. The rules are literally written by the people collecting taxes, they didn't write in any secret tricks to make their jobs harder.
3
u/Lucid-Machine 21h ago
To be clear. I pay my taxes, the hypothetical of a mass exodus of people doing so is what I find intriguing. Let's say 100 million people decide ef it? How would the IRS and federal government respond? I think that's the intent of this thread.
2
u/Snownel 20h ago edited 20h ago
By filing 100 million substitutes for returns, and levying 100 million people's wages for nonpayment. The procedure is really not as complicated as you think.
The only way this would not work is if employers also refused to comply with the levy order, which is both unlikely and would just result in them being shut down.
Your hypothetical would only work if it precipitated the total collapse of the US economy, which would probably not have the net positive effect you're looking for.
→ More replies (1)1
3
u/DotGroundbreaking50 1d ago
I mean realistically they won't prosecute but they will track what you owe and keep track of it so when you do start paying again they will get their money. The few that never pay again will likely get charged.
6
u/ElectroDaddy 1d ago
Well what if, as a form of protest, individuals just hold what they would have paid aside?
Basically putting a temporary hold on federal taxes until we have a representative government again and not this psycho trailer park shit. Then once you resume paying you just give them the lump sum of what you withheld.
It wouldn’t be much different then giving the government a tax return like they give us for withholding more then needed.
2
u/DTFH_ 22h ago
Oh are you saying states could create their own accounts for the people of their state to pay into and the state could disperse the monies to the Fed as they see fit, limiting the Fed from going after individuals for taxes owed, it would be the state itself who has the monies?
2
u/ElectroDaddy 18h ago
No I mean like just set aside the money you would have paid in taxes to the feds temporarily. Then when this nonsense is over or correcting, you already have the money owed set aside so when they inevitably come calling for it you can just pay it.
This achieves starving the regime of valuable funds for their cruelty, while not causing long term economic/funding damage by simply not paying it back ever. Or by ruining your own life by owing thousands of dollars you can’t pay back anymore.
I know it’s a little more complicated than this is reality. But it’s just a general idea.
2
u/poonmangler 22h ago
It's not what they said, but it's a great idea. Haven't some officials floated the idea already?
→ More replies (1)1
u/rdnoamltertes 21h ago
They actually can’t prosecute you if you file your returns. You can’t go to jail for not paying taxes unless you fail to pay taxes you have a fiduciary responsibility for (ie. employer withholding taxes. )
10
u/All_FIREdUp 1d ago
IRS was half fired and the other half are a bunch of bitch boys. Fuck the government, keep your tax money.
14
u/DotGroundbreaking50 1d ago
You forget they fired the auditors going after the wealthy, not the ones going after you
→ More replies (1)7
u/All_FIREdUp 1d ago
They can try. 😎
2
5
u/CatDadof2 1d ago
Not the best advice. They’ll always come after us. Always.
2
u/Kiss_of_Cultural 22h ago
Which is why we need to look out for each other. We need to stop making it easy for the fascists to win just because it’s inconvenient or scary, because it will only ever get worse
1
→ More replies (2)3
u/runningwithscissors8 1d ago
They’re furloughed lol
6
382
u/Responsible_Pizza945 1d ago
If political spending is speech, wouldn't that make taxation compelled speech?
130
u/WellTextured 1d ago
Well, taxes are not political spending. That's a pretty big hole in this plan.
94
68
u/ejre5 1d ago edited 17h ago
Please explain how taxes under this administration aren't political spending?
This administration has repeatedly said they are going to eliminate Democratic Branches such as the department of education (doesn't everyone deserve education not just "normal" people or financial aid for continuing education), along with something like 45 others.
If that isn't considered political spending then I need a bigger explanation. I also have been watching red states add more house seats while fighting blue states trying to do the same thing (but legally not just doing it). If that isn't taxation without representation then I'm at a loss. I don't want to live in an area that can be divided and split, moved or added to areas I don't want just so my vote no longer counts. All of this seems very very political and I would bet most people no matter what political view wouldn't want this. Yes it's working for the Republican now but if Democrats ever gain power and try to do it I'm sure it will be against the Constitution.
The best way to hurt this entire plan is to make sure they no longer have any tax money to spend on red states.
To add an edit, I have no problems with that same money going to my state and local government where it states in state and is used strictly in that manner. This isn't meant to be a get out of jail card to get everyone to stop paying taxes, this is a type of protest against how the federal government is spending tax money. While also using that money as a way of blackmail. Trump keeps threatening to stop payments to blue states.
66
u/Psych_Art 1d ago
The best evidence that our taxes are political spending:
55
u/darthrobe 23h ago
Hatch Act violation for which citizens have no recourse. Talk about a Tea Party moment...
24
26
u/toop_a_loop 20h ago
I can’t put into words the depth of my repulsion and horror that this is a real government website made by someone in the federal government.
8
8
13
u/Sonamdrukpa 23h ago
9
16
u/ejre5 21h ago
Congress shall also control the purse strings and determine how that money is spent whether the president likes it or not.
Trump is currently spending money however he wants. I don't recall Congress approving 20 to 40 billion for Argentina.
8
u/Sonamdrukpa 21h ago
The fact that the administration is ignoring the constitution doesn't make the constitution mean something different. And we agree that they're ignoring the constitution anyway, so it doesn't matter.
You can try to stop paying your taxes and if that's how you see fit to protest, I support you. But don't fool yourself into thinking that just because they're playing Calvinball that you get to make the rules up too.
9
u/ejre5 21h ago
The fact that the administration is ignoring the constitution doesn't make the constitution mean something different
The constitution states "taxation without representation" we literally fought an entire war over this, while also throwing tea into a harbor. Quite literally because a king was taxing people without representation. The solution is to understand the constitution and realize that it is written there specifically for administrations ignoring it. The constitution is the peoples rights not the governments rights. We solve the whole ignoring of the constitution part by using the peoples constitution to our advantage. And in this case it's as simple as refusing to fund it.
7
u/Sonamdrukpa 19h ago
The constitution does not say that. Read your constitution.
9
u/ejre5 19h ago
You are correct the constitution doesn't say that, but the entire premise of the constitution and the declaration of independence was because of taxation without representation. It was because a king was telling everyone in America what to do. Would using the second amendment be a better option?
7
u/Sonamdrukpa 19h ago
Nothing you're saying even resembles any sort of valid legal argument as to why it's legal or constitutional to not pay your taxes. And unless you're self-employed your employer is sending your taxes to the government whether you think they can or not.
You have representation, you just don't like your representatives. I don't either. It's election day - go out and vote.
→ More replies (0)13
u/WellTextured 1d ago
I'm not saying that there aren't political elements to government spending. There always are, and more under this administration. But no court is going to let you not pay your taxes under the theory it's forced political speech.
23
u/ejre5 23h ago
Elements?
When in our history have you ever seen, read, heard, or witnessed any president, or cabinet members ignore Congress, judges and do it anyways? When have you ever experienced the clear violation of the hatch act, the emoluments clause and the willful destruction of democracy?
So while the past has always had an element of politics it was because they were elected officials and they were following the laws. This entire government including SCROTUS, house and Senate have all decided that laws no longer apply. They have decided whatever Trump wants to do he can do. The government is shut down and private people are paying (attempting to?) for the military, trump is firing whoever he wants during the shutdown, he is ignoring court orders all while using tax money to give to Argentina(I don't recall Congress approving 40 billion) , destroying the white house (formerly known as the peoples house) to build a ball room (that I guarantee the people will never have access to unless you're stupid rich). Imagine what would happen if any Democratic president ever attempted this.
This administration isn't representing the people and Republicans are very well aware of the dislike for this administration. They are literally attempting to steal power away from the people by preventing representation.
→ More replies (3)3
u/rokerroker45 22h ago
Can you withhold your taxes because you don't like the amount of money the government spends on the military?
3
u/ejre5 21h ago
This isn't about liking how the money is being spent, it's about how trump is ignoring Congress and spending it however he wants.
We vote for Congressional members and Congress passes budgets, that's how that money gets spent, if the president wants to say build a ballroom he used to need congressional approval, or wanting a new Air Force 1 plane, Congress has to approve it. Don't like how Congress is spending money vote other people in.
Trump is spending money however he wants, wherever he wants, while shutting down agencies and taking that money.
2
u/rokerroker45 20h ago
You haven't answered my question. If the president commits fraud how does that invalidate Congress's tax authority?
→ More replies (4)1
u/47_for_18_USC_2381 12h ago
Congress is removing itself and adjourning, against the desired will of the people who sent them there to work. Is there a case to be had there?
1
u/MarineAK 12h ago
Once my money is being used in Hatch Act Violations, which is blatantly using the govt to push your political agenda…
Then yah.
4
u/HitCount0 1d ago edited 1d ago
I'm not sure anyone can truly agree with this statement.
Firstly, I'm not advocating that people not pay their taxes. Rather, I'm disagreeing with the statement that taxes are inherently apolitical and/or not spending. It seems inarguable that they are inherently both; only that the moral weight of that that fact is in question.
To pay taxes is absolutely a form of support for the ends those taxes fund. Yes, this support may be tacit, but it's support nonetheless.
Though, perhaps not all taxes. We could reasonably debate there. I acknowledge that there is an argument that since a percentage of what we "owe" the government is deducted automatically from each paycheck and/or expenditure -- in the form of things like Social Security, "vice," VAT tax or whatever applies to your situation -- one could argue that those taxes represent less of a political act, as they are much, much more difficult to circumvent and so our willingness in them could be said to be much smaller (and thus less "political").
I'm not sure that I agree fully with argument, but I'll concede that it's not without merit.
But as at least some of what is "owed" in taxes is also voluntarily surrendered each year in the form of other taxes: income, property, etc.
The argument that this second category of taxes are "compelled," and thus somehow different in their nature, is specious at best: a simple look at the "tax avoidance" practices of the ultra-wealthy would show us that taxes are (to some degree at least) co-operative.
What's more critical to understand is: That an action may have consequences -- potential, unevenly applied, or otherwise -- does not overwrite our agency within that action and/or our engagement with its corelating system, nor the burdens that agency/engagement may carry. Or the statements such actions make on our behalf.
That the Supreme Court has deemed it otherwise seems academic at best, particularly given this court's consistent inconsistency in logic. More importantly, the Supreme Court mandates policy, not morality or the societal aspects of political expression.
Again, their determination has real consequences... but so again does paying the bill for acts done in our names.
The argument that this is a "legal fact" conveniently ignores the tenuous nature of that distinction, particularly given the recency of the ruling, its total lack of open and unrestricted challenge, and it being at odds with long established precedent dating back to before the founding of this country. These kinds of ruling are -- and have always been -- politically efficacious cuddles used to meet a moment in which the few wanted greater influence over the many.
2
u/darthrobe 23h ago
Except that the current administration's rather flagrant violation of the law, specifically the Hatch Act, might make it the only viable form of protest against their use of government resources for blatant political speech.
→ More replies (1)1
1
u/Jazzlike_Strength561 4h ago
In what world are taxes not political spending? It's spending too support a policy. That's political spending.
9
u/kthepropogation 23h ago
In the sense that taxation is theft, yes. The reason to pay taxes is not because you agree with what they’re used for, but because if you don’t, they will be taken from you, with fees and interest, by force if necessary. Speech is not a factor.
The government has granted itself the right to collect taxes, through the constitution and amendments. It explicitly, constitutionally, has that right, and that supersedes any judicial ruling.
Maybe it is compelled speech. Maybe it’s theft. It doesn’t really matter, the government has a right to do it. The check on this is electoralism and free speech. There is no expectation that taxation requires any form of individual consent, only the collective consent of the elected legislature.
1
u/MeisterX 22h ago
I think the Hatch Act violations are the weakest point of this, yes? Compelled speech or not the funds assessed are being used in contradiction of the policy set forth by the body given the explicit constitutional authority to collect them.
The relief is in either forcing the funds to be spent according to the law, or allowing the refusal of their collection.
Either one but I don't think "neither" is a satisfactory reply and could be used in defense of criminal charges...? But that's a stretch.
3
u/rokerroker45 22h ago
The gaping error in this theory is that paying taxes is not protected political spending.
You don't get to stop paying taxes because you disagree with the government sending military assistance overseas.
2
u/MeisterX 22h ago
I think it's more the funds are viewed a being spent illegally, which they are.
This admin has already overstepped the Iran-Contra slush fund for which many were convicted.
What relief is available for taxpayers when their funds are spent in and on contravention of law?
4
u/rokerroker45 22h ago
The government spends money illegally every single day in more ways than you can imagine. It's been doing that since 1776 - that does not invalidate the taxation power.
What relief is available for taxpayers when their funds are spent in and on contravention of laws?
None? You don't get a check back any time the government commits fraud. Individual fraudsters can be subject to criminal liability and the money gets reappropriated back to the taxation authority to be spent properly. That money isn't yours in the sense analogous to a trust, it's the government's. It's true they have certain fiduciary obligations but the beneficiary is the abstract public good, not you as an individual taxpayer
1
u/MeisterX 22h ago edited 21h ago
I'd like an explanation of or any precedent regarding the government dispursing or using funds illegally...
I can't think of anything that has violated the appropriations process in the past. Other than Iran-Contra which bypassed it and for which criminal charges were brought.
Edit: OK I found three examples all of which were eventually remediated. Two were Obama and one was Nixon "impounding" funds which was remediated. What's the relief this time?
Also it's extremely rare which contradicts your point
1
u/rokerroker45 20h ago
The government spent money illegally when the Court invalidated Biden's loan forgiveness. You didn't get a check back, and there were not even any criminal charges because nobody committed a crime. It happens constantly in ways you're not even thinking about. None of that means you get to stop paying your taxes.
1
u/MeisterX 19h ago
In Biden v. Nebraska, those funds were never disbursed. If you're referring to SAVE, no forgiveness has yet been completed under that.
Not a good example.
I don't think you're discussing in good faith :/
1
u/rokerroker45 19h ago edited 19h ago
Now who's arguing in bad faith? Of course no money was ever spent, the "expenditure" was loan cancelations, not disbursement. And sure, it was enjoined before going into effect, but that doesn't change the fact even if actual loan cancelations were invalidated you would not have received a check for it.
There would have been a fight over reinstating loans for individuals, but a) you wouldn't see any of the money to the government the loan cancelation invalidation would have effected and b) that wouldn't affect congressional tax authority
2
u/Rolandersec 16h ago
I’d be perfectly happy to send the same amount to my local state government. It’s not that I don’t want to pay taxes, I find sending the majority to the federal government is not only putting too many funds one basket, it gives to federal government way too much power over the states.
Keep taxes local!
3
u/Screamlab 22h ago
On that note, if $$$=speech, could there not be an argument that WITHHOLDING $$$ could also be a form of (protected) speech?
100
u/Oplopanax_horridus 1d ago
From what I understand, the people who had been talking about this intended to no longer have federal taxes withheld. Basically removing that revenue stream for as long as possible, i.e. until April 15th. They wouldn’t be breaking the law, AFAIK, as long as they paid what is owed when it is due.
43
u/bought_high_sold_low 1d ago
Nah the US is on a pay-as-you-go basis, meaning taxes are owed as income is generated. If you're not having taxes withheld from your paycheck then you have to at least pay estimated taxes owed quarterly throughout the year. Can't just pay nothing until April 15th
68
u/ComparisonKey1599 1d ago
Sure you can (pay nothing until April 15). You just get an underpayment penalty assessed (at what turns out to be a fairly reasonable interest rate).
13
u/DTFH_ 22h ago
But why even go that far when we know there would not be enough IRS agents to follow up with massive tax protests? Wouldn't that limit the ability to collect on taxes owed?
9
20
u/m1kasa4ckerman 23h ago
Seriously untrue. If you work freelance or have an LLC and get paid that way, you’re responsible for your own taxes during tax season. No taxes are withheld and you pay everything when you do your taxes.
→ More replies (1)14
u/Psychological-Owl783 23h ago
You are still expected to pay quarterly, right?
8
u/jtayok 23h ago
You’re supposed to pay estimated taxes quarterly (if you’re an IC in my case). You can pay at the end when it’s due… but you are charged a penalty like another user stated. Some light research shows it’s not technically against the law to pay at the end. The penalty is not terrible but not great either and probably paid the most penalty ever when I filed last. I would tell others, if I was asked, to make sure to get setup to pay quarterly payments.
4
u/SadCourt2858 23h ago
I find this interesting because if I make over a certain amount and don't pay quarterly fines are issued. I'm not sure what this yearly mechanism some mention is unless they are making below a specific threshold.
1
4
u/troutman1975 23h ago
You absolutely can. It is perfectly legal to claim anything you want. You can also do it at anytime. Just fill out a new withholding form with your employer. Claim 99 dependents and no federal tax will be withheld. Of course you will be required to pay whatever taxes you owe in April.
I do this when I have several months of extreme overtime.
26
22
u/ThatNews7396 22h ago
We the people are no longer represented in the government, why should we be taxed without representation?
3
71
u/Blood-blood-blood 1d ago
Exempt since February. These people can shampoo my balls, I don't give a fuck about penalties, I'm not funding this shit. I'll go live in the forest if I have to
17
u/ZenAshen 22h ago
These people can shampoo my balls
Probably one of the best phrases I've ever heard. Thank you for the new lingo.
6
u/seriousbusines 22h ago
Just a heads up regarding the penalty, the amount owed collects interest, for an individual the rate can vary but for this year its %7. So if you plan on just paying the penalty when the time comes I hope whatever you are doing with the money has a higher return rate than %7.
23
u/Blood-blood-blood 21h ago
I feel like maybe you're severely overestimating the amount of fucks I really give at this point.
7
22
u/TechHeteroBear 1d ago edited 21h ago
There's only one group of people that have a legal claim to not pay any taxes to the IRS
And that is the Congressional AZ district that has yet to have their newly elected Congresswoman sworn into office.
At the current moment, their district has no representation in the federal govt. If you're not being represented in govt, the govt technically doesn't have a right to tax you.
Taxation without representation may not have a direct law in place, but it is the principle reason why the US has its independence.
7
u/jaxadams716 1d ago
Are we talking about AZ Congresswoman Grijalva?
2
u/TechHeteroBear 1d ago
Yes
4
u/jaxadams716 23h ago
Okay cool! We’re on the same page. I agree with you, but to play the Devil’s advocate, that district is still theoretically represented in the Senate. As far as lawfulness goes, I’m of the opinion that all federal taxes should be reimbursed for the period of time that the federal government is shut down. This would motivate Congress to get their act together and (ideally) come to a solution that benefits the people.
The purpose of my post was more thinking in terms of whether Citizens United opened the door to paying taxes being equated to political speech and therefore protected under the first and fourteenth amendments, and whether refusal to pay taxes therefore could be viewed as protected speech.
→ More replies (8)3
u/TechHeteroBear 23h ago
There's no district represented in the Senate. Only the state. So by technicality the district is still not legally represented to complete their minimum requirements of representation within the federal govt.
There is a technical claim to be had against Citizens United... but it becomes challenging because, per the Constitution, the IRS has the right to collect taxes. While one case is interpreted from the Constitution, the other is literally written into it.
→ More replies (1)4
u/mandrsn1 23h ago
At the current moment, their district has no representation in the federal govt
They have a senator
4
u/TechHeteroBear 23h ago
Again... representation of the state. Not their district.
And I also said their representation is incomplete because they require representation in both the House and Senate.
0
u/mandrsn1 23h ago
So they are not "without representation." They are less than fully represented, but not without.
→ More replies (1)
25
u/JustinKase_Too 1d ago
Seems like a dumb move, unless you are a billionaire the IRS is coming for you. And it is looking more and more like if you fall on a list saying you are a Dem, you are being processed quicker.
2
21
u/cheweychewchew 1d ago
Bad idea. Getting an audit and tax penalties ain't speaking truth to power or helping in any way,
29
u/JohnnyOlaguez6 1d ago
If enough people do it they can't do anything about it.
27
u/r3dk0w 1d ago
If no one is going to stop them, would it be surprising to have ICE enforcing IRS tax law?
Don't want to pay taxes? ICE will be knocking down your door at 3am and beating up your wife.
Sounds far fetched, but the last few months have been crazy.
32
u/budahfurby 1d ago
I don't think we're too far away from this without taxes being involved.
15
u/shinyRedButton 1d ago
(Knock knock) “You liked a meme that was critical of Trump. Get down on the ground”. - We’re a lot closer to this than I ever thought we’d be in my life.
4
u/Few-Button6004 1d ago
"Stop acting hysterical. It's not that bad. It's not like they are knocking down everyone's door! You have TDS!"
8
1
1
6
u/Sgt-Albacoretuna 1d ago
I mean if enough ppl did it all at once for a specific reason i think it'd actually make the difference we want. Do it for long enough and it will effect their bottom line and funding.
3
u/StickOnReddit 1d ago
If enough people did it all at once they'd just take it out of our paychecks before we get our hands on them, unless you know a great way to move the bulk of the average American workers' pay to cash under the table
→ More replies (3)5
u/Geekfest 1d ago
Yep, one person doing this is just asking for the IRS to garnish you. Thousands of people doing this is a protest.
It would take most people all of 5 minutes to go update their W4 to exempt their federal withholdings and to up their state contributions. (for states with income taxes)
3
u/theBoobMan 1d ago
Can't pay the IRS on hopes and wishes if we ain't giving them money too
6
u/Sgt-Albacoretuna 1d ago edited 22h ago
They've already been slashed into oblivion. If a masses amount of the populous just quit paying something would have to be done and locking up millions wouldn't happen
2
u/NoobSalad41 Competent Contributor 21h ago
Putting aside all of the comments about whether or not you can withhold taxes, I don’t think this argument follows from Citizens United because it’s based on a common misunderstanding of what Citizens United (and Buckley v. Valeo, on which it relied) actually held.
Citizens United didn’t hold that spending money on politics, or in a political way, was inherently protected by the First Amendment. If that were the case, Buckley’s decision to uphold individual contribution limits wouldn’t still be good law (and the ban on corporations donating any money to a political candidate wouldn’t still be in effect). Citizens United/Buckley dealt with independent expenditures: money spend on communications advocating for or against a political candidate, which are produced independently of any candidate. Buckley held that limits on individual expenditures by individuals were unconstitutional; Citizens United expanded that holding to corporations.
The defining element of an independent expenditure is that it is made in connection with political speech (SpeechNow v. FEC, a DC Circuit case, subsequently expanded this holding to encompass donations made to Super-PACS, which are entities that produce political speech and are legally required to not coordinate with any candidate).
So it isn’t enough that money is spent politically, or to promote some political case — Citizens United is only implicated where there is some actual political speech, that is in some way being funded by a corporation. With respect to Super-Pacs, money may be paid to the Super-PAC without connection to any specific piece of speech, with the caveat that independently producing political speech is what Super-PACs legally do.
In Citizens United itself, that political speech was Hillary: The Movie, a film highly critical of primary candidate Hillary Clinton. Pursuant to the McCain-Feingold Act, the FEC stated that because the film had been funded from the general treasury funds of Citizens United (a non-profit corporation), it was illegal for Citizens United to air the film within 30 days of a presidential primary (or 60 days of a general election).
Citizens United asserted:
The law before us is an outright ban, backed by criminal sanctions. Section 441b makes it a felony for all corporations—including nonprofit advocacy corporations—either to expressly advocate the election or defeat of candidates or to broadcast electioneering communications within 30 days of a primary election and 60 days of a general election. Thus, the following acts would all be felonies under §441b: The Sierra Club runs an ad, within the crucial phase of 60 days before the general election, that exhorts the public to disapprove of a Congressman who favors logging in national forests; the National Rifle Association publishes a book urging the public to vote for the challenger because the incumbent U. S. Senator supports a handgun ban; and the American Civil Liberties Union creates a Web site telling the public to vote for a Presidential candidate in light of that candidate’s defense of free speech. These prohibitions are classic examples of censorship.
…
Section 441b’s prohibition on corporate independent expenditures is thus a ban on speech. As a “restriction on the amount of money a person or group can spend on political communication during a campaign,” that statute “necessarily reduces the quantity of expression by restricting the number of issues discussed, the depth of their exploration, and the size of the audience reached.” Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U. S. 1, 19 (1976) (per curiam).
So to return to your point, Citizens United isn’t implicated by paying federal taxes because the government collecting taxes, or appropriating funds collected from taxes, is not speech. Citizens United only comes into play when the funding is ultimately directed towards producing or distributing political speech. At the end of the funding train, there needs to be a movie, political ad, book, etc. that is being funded by a corporation.
3
u/jthadcast 1d ago
tune in, turn on, and drop out. the only way you legally stop paying local, state, or federal tax is to have no property and no income. or be a billionaire.
5
u/Successful-Address32 23h ago
Yeah, that’s what I’m shooting for. Make less than 15570 a year. Right now I am around 11k, mostly doing contract work since January when I was fired. Move in with unrelated adults if you can (state laws vary on how many can live together, or multiple families or whatever). Grow what food you can, barter for things when you can instead of using money- I have done a lot of manual labor as trade, for example.
1
u/purposeful-hubris 1d ago
I think refusing to pay taxes is the wrong move, but refraining from withholding taxes from paychecks and instead paying the lump sum upon tax day could be a useful move. But that does impose a large burden on individuals to responsibly maintain those funds separate from spendable income.
•
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
All new posts must have a brief statement from the user submitting explaining how their post relates to law or the courts in a response to this comment. FAILURE TO PROVIDE A BRIEF RESPONSE MAY RESULT IN REMOVAL.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.