Democratic Presidential Contender Warren Outlines Proposed ‘Lobbying’ Tax

Democratic presidential hopeful Elizabeth Warren on Wednesday proposed taxing any corporation or organization that spends more than $500,000 annually in lobbying the federal government, expanding on her plan she has said would “end lobbying as we know it.”

Warren, a U.S. senator from Massachusetts, has centered her campaign on rooting out corruption in Washington. She has steadily risen in opinion polling this year, challenging fellow liberal U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders for the No. 2 spot behind former Vice President Joe Biden.

She previously said she would impose an excessive lobbying tax as part of a broader anti-corruption plan that would also bar most federal officials for life from serving as lobbyists, prevent lobbyists from donating to candidates and outlawing lobbying on behalf of foreign entities.

On Wednesday, she outlined the details of the tax, which would impose a 35% rate on lobbying spending between $500,000 and $1 million, 60% between $1 million and $5 million, and 75% on all spending in excess of $5 million.

If such a tax scheme had been in place over the past decade, it would have affected more than 1,600 organizations, raising $10 billion, according to the campaign.

Warren said she would use the revenue from the tax to establish a “lobbying defense trust fund” to help congressional agencies push back against corporate influence and an Office of the Public Advocate to elevate the viewpoints of working Americans when agencies are writing new regulations.

“Corporate lobbyists are experts at killing widely popular policies behind closed doors,” Warren wrote in announcing the proposal.

(Reporting by Joseph Ax; Editing by Peter Cooney)

Responses

  1. Ahh, another tax, but only against Republican/Conservative lobbyists. Democrat lobbyists will get a free ride. They hate the NRA because it protects our rights. Democrats don’t like everyone to have rights, only those that agree with them. Lately they have been attempting to end any comments from our President or anyone that disagrees with ‘man made global warming’ on Twitter and the networks, but cry 1st amendment when anyone disagrees with anything they say. Lying, cheating, corrupt Democrats.

  2. Anyone see the votes for passage in Congress? Me neither.

  3. How come nobody is complaining about the huge tax increase that the president has put into place and keeps threatening to increase even higher? Probably because they think that China is paying for it…

    1. Well, Trump did tell them China is paying and they fell for every other crazy arse thing he says. But your 5 down votes indicate that it apparently hurts their feelings if anyone mentions it. You should see how upset they get when you remind them that Mexico isn’t paying for the wall.

    2. Which imaginary tax increase would that be. Do you mean tariffs? Those tariffs were in place until Billy Bob Clinton removed them and created hundreds of billions of dollars in trade deficits and a loss of over 26 million jobs (as of 10 years ago). Tariffs protect American jobs while creating a trade balance with countries with $.50 to $1.00 an hour pay scales. All the revenue problems from 1993 to present day have been caused by NAFTA. Tariffs should be restored to pre-December 1993 levels.

  4. The only people that vote for tax and spend liberals are those that either don’t have jobs or are looking for some free shit which they won’t get.

    1. Free stuff worked in 2016! FREE wall. FREE tax cuts. Consequence-FREE actions. Logic-FREE foreign policy. Constitutional-FREE domestic policy. HOW did that work out for you, Tom? Will work out the same for the Sanders, Warren, and Yang supporters.

      1. Reread your post when sober and tell me what the hell you are talking about.

  5. She and same Sanders only have one promise,HIGH the taxes

  6. Tax tax

    People don’t get it. When businesses pay more taxes they pass them on to consumers. (Us)

    1. And as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 proved when businesses pay less taxes they buy back their stock. Did the “consumers. (Us)” get a break in the prices??? NO. Did they invest in development? NO.

  7. “Being “popular” is not the way a well ordered society ought to choose it’s laws or policies.” TruSkeptik

    OK, then I presume that you would be willing to give up your 5-day work week for a 7-day one & be willing to send your children to work. These are both “popular” laws and regulations. Is that right or am I confused?

  8. The Indian lady wants to tax everything. We might all just work for her spending habits. I don’t know how she would get all this tax legislation through the Congress, though.

  9. Merely because a proven liar like Warren claims there have been “widely popular” policies done in by lobbyists, doesn’t make it true. She intentionally fails to distinguish at least two important facts. Being “popular” is not the way a well ordered society ought to choose it’s laws or policies. From the perspective of a leftist, any policy that includes “free cheese” is going to be popular in a society in which the leadership is actively engaged in keeping the population ignorant, poor and beholding. No thanks, Liz, now go back to the reservation from which you came. . . . .

    1. “Being “popular” is not the way a well ordered society ought to choose it’s laws or policies.” TruSkeptik

      OK, then I presume that you would be willing to give up your 5-day work week for a 7-day one and be willing to send your children to work. These are both “popular” laws and regulations. Is that right or am I confused?

      1. Confused lying again. Those popular laws and regulations are nonsense and would only be ‘popular’ to a dolt like you.

Comments are closed.