I don’t think it depends so much on your politics. Regardless of how you feel about the slush fund[1], the 100% tax is pretty straightforwardly unconstitutional and would have been blocked by a judge. It violates the intergovernmental tax immunity clause (you can’t single out taxing federal funds) and other rules.
@dawnlightmelody Yes, I have little doubt the original settlement fund is a brazen display of corruption.
This doesn’t mean all responses to corruption are appropriate, and in this case, having a state legislator propose that the state seizes the funds violates a bunch of red lines that I would really like to avoid violating (and also, my guess is a judge would have blocked this bill).
I don’t think it depends so much on your politics. Regardless of how you feel about the slush fund[1], the 100% tax is pretty straightforwardly unconstitutional and would have been blocked by a judge. It violates the intergovernmental tax immunity clause (you can’t single out taxing federal funds) and other rules.
See Claude here for more: https://claude.ai/share/239f4a67-7bf7-48f8-9718-843ffc65dce6
The escalation seems pointless and unproductive since it would have been blocked anyway, which Bores would’ve known about.
I personally agree with you that theres the massive corruption in the fund
@dawnlightmelody Yes, I have little doubt the original settlement fund is a brazen display of corruption.
This doesn’t mean all responses to corruption are appropriate, and in this case, having a state legislator propose that the state seizes the funds violates a bunch of red lines that I would really like to avoid violating (and also, my guess is a judge would have blocked this bill).