August 15 roundup

5 Comments

  • Re: Lori Swanson.

    (1) Shouldn’t the IRS be looking into this? If she coerced activities that were not lawfully provided, that is gross income to her and it should be taxed.

    (2) Shouldn’t she have to repay the state for the time spent?

    • (1) Nope. The work coerced was for her political campaigns, which means it’s campaign contributions, not personal income. Her state elections commission should be investigating, not the Federal IRS.

      (2). Maybe, that would depend on state law. I know that in Wisconsin, public sector unions have in the past (this may have been changed with Walker’s reforms) been legally allowed to have union members doing work for the union work while on the clock for their government jobs. This has included political work for the union up to and including the union coordinating with the campaigns of candidates.

      • Hmmmm, that doesn’t sound right.

        Voluntary contributions to a political campaign aren’t, of course, taxable to the candidate, but if I hold government office that has a staff, and I have the staff perform duties for me that are not authorized–e.g., I have the staffer do my grocery shopping, then I have commandeered state resources for my own benefit. And the fair market value of those services would be taxable income to me–so why does that not obtain if the staff member is pressed into service for my campaign? I’m still using that resource.

        As for (2), it seems to me that unless she has personal immunity, then she is liable for the wages for the hours worked (assuming, of course, that the allegations are true).

        • “I have the staffer do my grocery shopping, then I have commandeered state resources for my own benefit. And the fair market value of those services would be taxable income to me–so why does that not obtain if the staff member is pressed into service for my campaign? I’m still using that resource.”

          Technically in the campaign case, it is your campaign organization, not you personally, using the resource and deriving the direct benefit.

          • Um, no. It’s the commandeering that’s the issue, not the purpose to which the commandeering is put. She took value that was supposed to be provided to the state and bestowed that value to the campaign. Thus she controlled the value, and it is taxable to her.

            Of course, the value provided to the campaign may independently violate campaign finance laws.