Update on Ed Brown IRS case...

[SamTuckerMTNMAN]

it seems

to me like the federal reserve is the undoing of this country. a debt based economic system is currently floating much of what we call "the american way of life", and our currency base has all but been destroyed. it's just a matter of time until the house of cards comes down. I am more than willing to rethink anything I say if given good arguments. I only feel this way because its the way it looks after much inspection and thought. The federal reserve is criminal enough to deserve the utmost of scrutiny and scorn, any part of the system tied to the 'fed' seems anti-American to me. The taxes, in current form, are part of this machine. Think 'debtors prisons' are bad now.....hmm.....wait about 25 years.


st

 

[rmurfster]

For those bringing up the fact that Congress has the right to levy and collect taxes: you are absolutely, 100% correct. ... There is no stipulation for Congress to impose fines for tax liens, either - just collection of taxes. And there is no mention whatsoever of criminal prosecution for not paying such taxes - just that they may be collected.

What?? Congress is allowed to make laws, but not allowed to enforce them or penalize for breaking the law?

"Pretty please Mr. law-breaker, stop breaking the law!"

 

[geronimotwo]

However, you are correct, every single successful national or regional movement has always, on all sides, by everyone interested, been infiltrated, divided from within, or misdirected, or opened for attack (usually the misdirection and division work best). Always. It is strategy. It is tactical. It is the reason many grassroots org's fail to reach potential effectiveness.

to take this one step further, who would know if ed brown is a government "plant". why not create the perfect scenario to discredit this type of behavior, rather than just disrupting it?

 

[Gifted]

The IRS is not Congress, and as far as I know there is no concensus in this amendment for Congress to have a 3rd party act under their authority.

So, when congress makes a law, it's a critter that comes out here and arrests me for committing a crime? No, there's others that bring the guns. When you do something like an income tax, you need a bureacracy--I suppose you could try to challenge the authority of the IRS, but I don't think that would work.

 

[hammer4nc]

An open question for the board...

"He's a fool and an idiot because he lost in court; and everyone who has challenged the system has lost and ended up in jail"

Above is really a summary of the best argument from members who have criticized Ed Brown's actions. This sentiment presupposes a high level of faith and trust in our judicial system (not to mention the tax courts, who can be described as anything BUT impartial). For example, does anyone realize that a requirement for entering tax court is that you must agree NOT TO APPEAL THE RULING before the proceedings ever begin?

Anyway, the point being ignored is that the challenge is not only to the evils of the income tax system; but to the corrupt judicial system that props it up. Anyone notice the similarities among many of the constitutional challenges raised in tax cases, 2nd amendment cases (Fincher, et al)?

Seems the primary function of the judge in these cases, is to exclude the arguments of the citizen; to prevent these words from ever reaching the ears of the jury. Something very troubling about this. Anyone else take exception to the notion that: "judges decide the law, juries decide the facts" (after the judges scrub the testimony, of course).

A similar strict judicial approach is not taken, and would not be tolerated, in first amendment constitutional cases i.e., how many hours have been devoted to deliberating if free speech applies to flag burning; or t-shirt wearing in official venues?

So, the question raised for discussion:
If one believes the judicial system is complicit in the corruption, what is the proper course of action?

 

[Thin Black Line]

About 20 of those employees have entered into an IRS payment plan, bringing the EOP balance down to $455,881 owed by 50 employees.

Well, according to the news report you quoted they are paying their taxes - to the tune of $208,646 according to your article. They aren't holed up in a 8" concrete bunker house claiming they have no obligation to pay taxes.

That's right. And around 30 may not have entered into any kind of payment
plan whatsover and everyone seems fine with that. Hence the use of hyperbole
about them being holed up as opposed to Ed Brown.

Interesting that there isn't some sort of mechanism in place where the fedgov
is able to instantly garnish the federal pay of federal employees. Maybe it
should be something similar to losing a government job for failure to register
in the SSS. I can guarantee you that there are plenty of Americans who
fully comply with the current tax system who would take their jobs. This
is certainly not a case of "jobs Americans won't do."

In any case, at least they have the friendly tax reminder memo system in
place:

The IRS tracks the compliance rate of federal employees each year in an effort to increase compliance. Agency directors are made aware of their department's compliance rate and then memos are sent to staff encouraging them to file their taxes.

"Please file....pretty please....pretty please with sugar on top...."

I wonder how many of the federal employees who have not paid their taxes
also have a current security clearance. This now becomes a national security
issue! Probably more so than the situation with Brown....

 

[Thin Black Line]

For example, does anyone realize that a requirement for entering tax court is that you must agree NOT TO APPEAL THE RULING before the proceedings ever begin?

What's next? A direct assault on habeas corpus?

 

[DMF]

For example, does anyone realize that a requirement for entering tax court is that you must agree NOT TO APPEAL THE RULING before the proceedings ever begin?

Where's your proof of this nonsense?

Don't give me a link to some anti-tax tinhat website, give me something from a legitimate government website that backs up this claim. You'll forgive me if I don't hold my breath while I await your response.

Seems the primary function of the judge in these cases, is to exclude the arguments of the citizen; to prevent these words from ever reaching the ears of the jury.

That's definitely not true in this case:

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070111/REPOSITORY/701110383/1043/48HOURS

"Plainfield couple facing federal tax evasion charges should be free to explain their unconventional legal views in front of the jury, the judge ruled yesterday before the second day of trial testimony began."

However, here is where Brown really screwed the pooch, and what the anti-tax fanatics on this forum don't want to hear:

. . . testimony yesterday cast some doubt on their contention that no one had ever tried to explain the tax law to them. Several former bookkeepers and government agents described repeated communications with the Browns about their tax obligations and the laws governing trusts. In one case, an IRS employee testified, the Browns refused to accept a certified letter that would have offered them a sit-down meeting with IRS officials, an opportunity that Ed Brown said later was all he had wanted.

 

[antarti]

The federal reserve is criminal enough to deserve the utmost of scrutiny and scorn, any part of the system tied to the 'fed' seems anti-American to me. The taxes, in current form, are part of this machine. Think 'debtors prisons' are bad now.....hmm.....wait about 25 years.

A little off topic, but oh so true.

First, they create (not even necessarily print) money out of thin air. When the hoi polloi do that, it's called the same thing: counterfeiting.
Then, just after it's created, we all get to pay rent on our medium of exchange (debt created along with the dollars).
Then they create so many more, you get robbed by inflation (dollars "store" negative value!).
After all that (robbing you thrice), then they want most of it back.

Sounds fair to me... why would anybody protest that

 

[hammer4nc]

DMF asked:

Where's your proof of this nonsense?

How about wikipedia? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Tax_Court

In certain tax disputes involving $50,000 or less, taxpayers may elect to have their case conducted under the Court's simplified small tax case procedure.[13] Trials in small tax cases generally are less formal and result in a speedier disposition. However, decisions entered pursuant to small tax case procedures are not appealable and may not be cited as precedent.

 

[DMF]

Gee hammer, just from the BS wikipedia citation we can see you're making this crap up, and you yourself even quoted it making it even stranger that you would try to use that citation to perpetuate your fictional claim.

There is one very specific situation where someone agrees not to appeal their ruling:

In certain tax disputes involving $50,000 or less, taxpayers may elect to have their case conducted under the Court's simplified small tax case procedure.[13] Trials in small tax cases generally are less formal and result in a speedier disposition. However, decisions entered pursuant to small tax case procedures are not appealable and may not be cited as precedent.

However, as long as the taxpayer does not elect to use the "speedier" and "less formal" small tax case procedure, the rulings of the tax court can most certainly be appealed. In fact again just according your wikipedia citation without even looking to actual legitimate citations, we can you are not telling the truth:

. . . decisions of the tax court may automatically be reviewed by the applicable United States Court of Appeals.

A little research at a site that's more reliable than wikipedia we can confirm that cases can be appealed to the US Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00007482----000-.html

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

hammer4nc - the taxpayer is the one who decides whether or not to file in Tax Court. They are not forced to do that, it is one of many choices available to them. Once there, they may also elect to use the simplified trial process if the debt is under $50,000. Again, they are not required to do this, it is a choice. If they do choose that, the decision is not appealable.

However taxpayers always have the option of filing the case in federal district court and from there it may be appealed all the way up to the Supreme Court.

Anyway, the point being ignored is that the challenge is not only to the evils of the income tax system; but to the corrupt judicial system that props it up.

The judicial system is corrupt because it looks at the Constitution and 16th Amendment and decides that Congress can levy an income tax? Please describe for me the specific instances of corruption you have in mind. Go read some of the tax cases from the earlier thread on this subject. Most of the cases challenging the income tax occurred in the 1920s. This is prior to FDR when the Court was absloutely packed with free-market, individual rights, capitalist types. This is the Lochner-era Court.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

You're Still Screwed, Unless...

Title 26 § 7482

(c) Powers

(2) To make rules

Rules for review of decisions of the Tax Court shall be those prescribed by the Supreme Court under section 2072 of title 28 of the United States Code.​

This is oligarchy, plain and simple, boldly placed in print for all to see. This is unconstitutional. This belongs in the purview of Congress because Congress has not been granted power to delegate any of its powers.

Title 26 § 7482

(c) Powers

(3) To require additional security

Nothing in section 7483 (Review of a decision of the Tax Court shall be obtained by filing a notice of appeal with the clerk of the Tax Court within 90 days after the decision of the Tax Court is entered. If a timely notice of appeal is filed by one party, any other party may take an appeal by filing a notice of appeal within 120 days after the decision of the Tax Court is entered.)shall be construed as relieving the petitioner from making or filing such undertakings as the court may require as a condition of or in connection with the review.​

You must pay up as the lower tax court decides to be eligible for review. In other words, you lose up front and are then at the mercy of the review court for any hope of getting your money back. You can't even put up a bond. You are basically sunk as to any recourse whatsoever - short of the action the Browns have taken.

Woody

Thomas Jefferson worried that the Courts would overstep their authority and instead of interpreting the law would begin making law....an oligarchy...the rule of few over many.

 

[antarti]

The system exists. It has rules. The rules are known. According to the courts, the rules are legal. Anybody who knowingly breaks these rules--breaks the law--is scamming. Simple as that.

We have no right under the Constitution to refuse to obey a law which is Constitutional. We may protest it (the 1st Amendment) until we're blue in the face , but we may not refuse to pay it.

You know, I used to be a "straight R voter, law and order" type, until I realized that no end of "law enforcement" will be used on the people, and none on the government itself when they "break the law".

Just so you understand, this is not to excuse anybody's behavior (civilian or civil servant), but where is the same level of rhetoric and action when the government breaks the law with impunity?

I'd much rather see activist judges, unelected agency heads who like to legislate, and politicians holed up and shaking their fists impotently against an armed mob than some poor shlub.

At least be consistent in your belief that force of law should apply equally, without prejudice to the "criminal".

 

[Refirignis]

Sigh.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

This is oligarchy, plain and simple, boldly placed in print for all to see. This is unconstitutional. This belongs in the purview of Congress because Congress has not been granted power to delegate any of its powers.

There are plenty of court decisions supporting the notion that Congress may delegate administrative functions to agencies.

You are also interpreting the Constitution in a way that the founding fathers expressly rejected. The Articles of Confederation provided that Congress was only entitled to the powers that were expressly granted to it in the Articles. If it wasn't written down, then the feds did not have that power. That system was such a failure that it led to the Constitutional convention and even those who had supported express grant of powers rejected it and adopted the notion of implied powers where only the broad contours of federal power were described.

Under the implied powers view, Congress has the power to set up tax courts in order to serve its power of levying taxes.

However, we don't even need to rely on that; because spelled out in black and white in Art. I Sec. 8 right along with the power to tax is this express power:

"To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;"

You must pay up as the lower tax court decides to be eligible for review. In other words, you lose up front and are then at the mercy of the review court for any hope of getting your money back. You can't even put up a bond. You are basically sunk as to any recourse whatsoever - short of the action the Browns have taken.

You have read the statute incorrectly. One of the major selling points of Tax Court is that you do not have to pay the disputed tax until a final decision is reached. To get to District Court, you must first pay the tax, then apply to the IRS for a refund for the disputed portion of the tax. When that refund is denied, you can then sue in District Court.

I've yet to see a convincing argument that the income tax is unconstitutional or that Congress does not have the power to collect an income tax by the virtue of Article 1 Section 8.

Let's look at the arguments I am familiar with:

1. The 16th Amendment wasn't properly ratified

The argument here is that because different state legislatures used text that had different spelling, capitalization or punctuation the 16th Amendment is invalid.

Now there are basically only two ways to make this argument with a straight face. One is that one of these different versions was so different that people ratified something substantially different than they thought they were ratifying and so the Amendment should be invalidated.

Here is the text of the 16th Amendment:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Now, please change the capitalization, punctuation or make minor spelling errors in that in such a way that it is no longer clear that you are getting an unapportioned income tax if this Amendment passes.

The second argument is simply that the requirement for all versions to be identical is so important it must be strictly enforced even if everyone understood what they were ratifying.

Now let's say we win with one of these arguments. What will happen? Will the United States government simply give up 48.8% of its revenue? Will income tax go away? Unlikely on both counts, the Supreme Court had already upheld Congress's power to levy an income tax during the Civil War prior to the 16th Amendment. The reason the 16th Amendment cam about was because of a Supreme Court case named Pollack. In that case, the Supreme Court ruled that a tax on the sale of property was the same as a tax on the property itself and such a tax was a direct tax. Taxes on wages on the other hand were an excise tax and as such were indirect taxes. This is important because the Constitution says all direct taxes must be apportioned. The practical result of this was that if you were out working for $0.25/hr, your wages were taxable. However, if you were a millionaire receiving $10,000/month from stock dividends, your income was not taxable. As you might imagine, this was not a popular result.

The important part to take away from this is that even if this argument is successful, taxes aren't going to go away. They will simply be restructured. However, that isn't all we get with this "success." We have won something even more dangerous - we have established the idea that minor spelling, capitalization or punctuation differences in proposals for ratification are enough to invalidate an amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Think about that for a second... the 16th was written in 1913 when they had much more advanced communications that should have made it easy to offer substantially similar versions. Think how hard that would be to do in 1793 when the original Bill of Rights was offered... think the 16th Amendment would be the only amendment to get struck down if we establish this rule?

 

[Thin Black Line]

There are plenty of court decisions supporting the notion that Congress may delegate administrative functions to agencies.

You are also interpreting the Constitution in a way that the founding fathers expressly rejected.

Yes, let's get back to the Founding Fathers and what they intended for
this country after they felt it necessary to rebel against an onerous
government detached from its citizenry both by distance and lifestyle.
Which of the Founding Fathers' documents was this quote from:

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

So, yes, by all means let's bring up the Founding Fathers, their original intent,
and the SPIRIT of the law.

Better yet, let's compare the number of government offices and employees
as a percentage of population between then and now. Let's also compare
the bite of taxation out of a person's gross earnings between then and now.

Surely someone has done such a study. In fact, I'll wager (figuratively so
you letter of the law people don't actually think some money is involved
in this statement and attempt to prosecute me for illegal gambling) that
there are far more government offices, employees, and taxes upon us now
than during the time the Founding Fathers took that brave step and said
"ENOUGH!"

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

This is oligarchy, plain and simple, boldly placed in print for all to see. This is unconstitutional. This belongs in the purview of Congress because Congress has not been granted power to delegate any of its powers.

There are plenty of court decisions supporting the notion that Congress may delegate administrative functions to agencies.

We're not talking administrative functions here. We're talking the creation of rules here. That is a legislative function, expressly and singularly granted to Congress. Besides, when it comes to the Constitution, anything contrary to it is notwithstanding regardless from where it emanates. And on top of that, the Supreme Court or any inferior tribunal is not an agency of Congress.

You are also interpreting the Constitution in a way that the founding fathers expressly rejected. The Articles of Confederation provided that Congress was only entitled to the powers that were expressly granted to it in the Articles. If it wasn't written down, then the feds did not have that power. That system was such a failure that it led to the Constitutional convention and even those who had supported express grant of powers rejected it and adopted the notion of implied powers where only the broad contours of federal power were described.

Wow. What a falsehood. We do not have implied powers granted to Congress in the Constitution. Those powers are still quite specific and limited. Even the Necessary and Proper Clause, often cited as granting such power to Congress as you suggest, strictly limits(only allows) Congress to make laws to exercise those powers granted to it in the Constitution, ...and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof. Take note of that which I placed in bold. That means to make law governing powers granted to the Executive and Judicial branches as well, except, of course, where specific powers - with or without congressional oversight as the case may be - have been granted to those other two branches.

Under the implied powers view, Congress has the power to set up tax courts in order to serve its power of levying taxes.

That power is not implied. It is specific. See Article I, Section 8,Clause (9)

However, we don't even need to rely on that; because spelled out in black and white in Art. I Sec. 8 right along with the power to tax is this express power:

"To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;"

Here you say exactly what I said, and you dispel your own interpretation of "implied" power. I only bring it up because of the contradiction.

You must pay up as the lower tax court decides to be eligible for review. In other words, you lose up front and are then at the mercy of the review court for any hope of getting your money back. You can't even put up a bond. You are basically sunk as to any recourse whatsoever - short of the action the Browns have taken.

You have read the statute incorrectly. One of the major selling points of Tax Court is that you do not have to pay the disputed tax until a final decision is reached. To get to District Court, you must first pay the tax, then apply to the IRS for a refund for the disputed portion of the tax. When that refund is denied, you can then sue in District Court.

I'm not talking about the Tax Court, I'm talking about the US Courts of Appeals where the review of a Tax Court decision would be heard. Decisions of the Tax Court do not get appealed to the District Court. The appeals go straight to the United States Courts of Appeals per Title 26, § 7482 (a), and one of the requisites is that you pay the tax before you can appeal it.

Woody

"The power of those in government to use common sense shall not be infringed. It is imperative, however, to elect people to those positions of power who possess common sense. Remember that at the next election." B.E.Wood

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I'll wager that there are far more government offices, employees, and taxes upon us now than during the time the Founding Fathers took that brave step and said "ENOUGH!"

Except that the founders had no other options because they had taxation without representation. You and I and Ed Brown all have representation. We have free speech where we can make our claims. We have a system to present our grievances. In a Republic, you might not always get your way because the other citizens may disagree with you; but you don't get to ignore the laws you dislike anymore than they can selectively ignore the laws you advocated.

As far as your wager, federal receipts were 16.4% of the gross domestic product in 2003. If you include all tax burdens (state and local as well), then the number is 28.9% - the fifth lowest tax rate of any developed country in the world. Only Mexico and Korea have substantially lower tax rates (Mexico also claims rights to all oil and gas revenues and these make up 60% of their revenue, unlike the U.S. which permits private ownership) and Japan and Turkey have overall tax rates that are slightly lower than ours (less than one point). Source: Background Materials on Business Tax Issues Prepared for the House Ways and Means Committee, April and May 2002.

If you can find some data for 1776, it would be an interesting comparsion. However, given that there were two rebellions under the Articles of Confederation due to taxation policies of the first Congress (Whiskey Rebellion and Shay's Rebellion), I wouldn't be surprised to find out that the first Congress laid down a fairly heavy tax burden.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

We're not talking administrative functions here. We're talking the creation of rules here. That is a legislative function, expressly and singularly granted to Congress.

OK, let's say your interpretation is correct and no administrative agency is empowered to make rules. Have you looked at the number of rules written by administrative agencies? Do you believe all of those rules unnecessary? Do you believe that 535 people can administer all of those different areas in a fashion sufficient to keep government running? What alternative would you suggest to administrative rulemaking?

We do not have implied powers granted to Congress in the Constitution. Those powers are still quite specific and limited.

We are both saying the same thing here - Congress has powers not expressly written into the Constitution in order to implement the functions that ARE written into the Constitution (for example: taxation).

That power is not implied. It is specific. See Article I, Section 8,Clause (9).... Here you say exactly what I said, and you dispel your own interpretation of "implied" power. I only bring it up because of the contradiction.

How does that dispel my interpretation? Just because Congress has also been granted the express power to establish tax courts in 9 (and weren't you just arguing that this was unconstitutional a minute ago speaking of dispelled interpretations?), does not mean that Congress does not have the implied power necessary to establish tax courts in order to carry out its function of fairly administering taxes.

I'm not talking about the Tax Court, I'm talking about the US Courts of Appeals where the review of a Tax Court decision would be heard. Decisions of the Tax Court do not get appealed to the District Court. The appeals go straight to the United States Courts of Appeals per Title 26, § 7482 (a), and one of the requisites is that you pay the tax before you can appeal it.

The idea behind the law is that the agency has determined via Tax Court that you do in fact owe the taxes and you must pay them. You can then request that they refund the tax you pay. If they deny this request, they have issued a final administrative decision that allows you to take the case to the Court of Appeals (if you already tried the Tax Court) or to the District Court (if you chose not to litigate in Tax Court). If you think that is an unfair law, I would suggest contacting your representative. However, keep in mind that appeals on tax cases can last years and years. It may be a decade before the case is finally decided. If the government cannot collect money until a final decision is issued, it will mean higher taxes for everyone not contesting their taxes in the meantime (and a nasty tax bill that may have interest far exceeding the original taxes if the taxpayer loses).

However, you don't seem to be addressing my main point - which is that the power of Congress to collect income tax is plainly constitutional. If that is the case, all you are arguing about is what form the tax should take.

 

[Thin Black Line]

You and I and Ed Brown all have representation.

I mentioned a while back that I don't have the kind of money for the
"representation" enjoyed by those who are able to buy the $5,000 plates
at the big dinners. How much does a front table setting go for now?
$25,000? I'm not sure how well that money would have been spent
considering our Congress is irrelevant with it's symbolic non-binding
resolutions anyway.

IMO saying that "we" have representation and are still living in a [Constitutional]
Republic is a stretch. Maybe I'll just have to concede to your idealism
on that, though. Or maybe we should just agree that money has always
played a larger role than representation anyway. That would probably be
the cold hard truth of it. No more rose-colored glasses for me either when
it comes to idealism about the past and their supposed lack of power, greed,
and corruption, right?

As far as your wager, federal receipts were 16.4% of the gross domestic product in 2003. If you include all tax burdens (state and local as well), then the number is 28.9% - the fifth lowest tax rate of any developed country in the world.

And, I've seen estimates of 50%. In any case, sure whatever, we'll agree
on the 5th lowest tax, but that's kind of like standing in the swamp and
saying we have fewer leeches on us than our neighbors.

Maybe it's just me, but I think we have the ability to get in a boat and
head for higher ground. There --how do you like that? I'm thinking more
positive now. Mmmm, sweet blue pill....

However, given that there were two rebellions under the Articles of Confederation due to taxation policies of the first Congress (Whiskey Rebellion and Shay's Rebellion), I wouldn't be surprised to find out that the first Congress laid down a fairly heavy tax burden.

And just how much was the tax that touched off those rebellions? What
was the total of taxes on the citizens at that time? 29-50%? Doubtful.

Maybe one of the other posters on this thread can find some comparisons
for us. I'm sure these things have ebbed and flowed over the years. For
all we know Nebuchadnezzar may have taxed his people less than we are.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

You can have all of the money in the world; but you don't get the office or the responsibilities that come with it unless you have the votes. The guy who pays $5,000 a plate has the same number of votes you do. One reason the NRA is feared is because every $30 of their money has a vote attached to it somewhere.

Money certainly is an advantage and a strong one. It allows you to educate voters on the specific issues you want them educated on and since many voters aren't well-educated on what goes on in Congress, that is a powerful ability.

At the end of the day though, it is votes that determine how the game is played. You either have the votes or you don't. There is no way a few voters with money can ignore the will of a mass of voters, provided that those voters actually get out there and express their will.

 

[Thin Black Line]

One reason the NRA is feared is because every $30 of their money has a vote attached to it somewhere.

And someone who believes in the RKBA.

 

[Ian]

You can have all of the money in the world; but you don't get the office or the responsibilities that come with it unless you have the votes.

That's just wishful thinking. There's a blatantly obvious correlation between the amount of money put into a campaign and the number of votes it gets. Few people take the time and effort to thoroughly investigate each candidate and ballot issue; they most often base decisions on the campaign advertising they see. Money buys the office.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

There's a blatantly obvious correlation between the amount of money put into a campaign and the number of votes it gets.

So if I have enough money, I can get elected no matter how unpopular my platform is? I can remain elected regardless of how much I disregard my constituents?

Money is an advantage (as I said earlier); but it isn't a vote.