BillHobbs.com is a frequently updated blog of original reporting and commentary by Bill Hobbs, a longtime Nashville journalist and media relations adviser. I am currently serving as communications director for the Tennessee Republican Party, a job I began on Oct. 29, 2007.
Are Tennessee's Corporate Giveaways Constitutional?
Are recent taxpayer-funded gifts to major corporations by the Tennessee legislature, with the full backing of Gov. Phil Bredesen, actually legal under the state's constitution? That's what one reader of mine wants to know after reading this post of mine from Monday. I've posted the reader's email with only one minor edit (to embed a link). The reader writes...
The subject piece illustrates a phenomenon which has interested me for a decade now--Interest Group Liberalism or Neocorporatism in America. Roughly defined, the phenomenon of Interest Group Liberalism or Neocorporatism in America comprises special privileges or immunities created for or granted to selected groups or classes of people by government. Neocorporatism seems to stand in direct opposition to the notion of isonomy or equality under the law, to the proposition that our laws should protect each citizen equally, that our laws should be general laws which apply to everyone without discrimination against anyone. An earmarked $64 million dollar gift from the taxpayers of Tennessee to the corporate stockholders of Nissan hardly appears isonomic.
Do you have any idea, or do you know anyone who has any idea, of the original intent of the following two provisions of the Tennessee Constitution? Has the original intent been circumvented somehow by the Governor or the General Assembly or the Courts?
Article XI, Section 8. The Legislature shall have no power to suspend any general law for the benefit of any particular individual, nor to pass any law for the benefit of individuals inconsistent with the general laws of the land; nor to pass any law granting to any individual or individuals, rights, privileges, immunitie, [immunities] or exemptions other than such as may be, by the same law ex-tended to any member of the community, who may be able to bring himself within the provisions of such law. No corporation shall be created or its powers increased or diminished by special laws but the General Assembly shall pro-vide by general laws for the organization of all corporations, hereafter created, which laws may, at any time, be altered or repealed, and no such alteration or repeal shall interfere with or divest rights which have become vested.
Article II, Section 29. The General Assembly shall have power to authorize the several counties and incorporated towns in this state, to impose taxes for county and corporation purposes respectively, in such manner as shall be prescribed by law; and all property shall be taxed according to its value, upon the principles established in regard to state taxation.
Wouldn't the stockholders of most corporations in Tennessee just love to bring their corporations within the provisions of the law which makes this gift to Nissan?
Incidentally, it is interesting to see how constitutional original intent is circumvented in other states as well, sometimes by merely resorting facilely to a different word. For instance, in this example from Virginia, the appropriators used "cultural" to supercede "charitable." :-)
Is neocorporatism a synonym, at least partially, for a "living constitution"?
Good questions. I'm not a law professor or expert in the Tennessee constitution, so I'm tossing these questions out for my readers.
THIS LINK would be a good starting point to research this question, even though it's from 1990. I read a similar book about the Tennessee Constitution several years ago, and based on what I read, I'm convinced that the early voting law is also unconstitutional.
Posted by: Glen Harness at July 19, 2006 4:53 PM
Hope you may post on this topic Thursday and Friday of this week while Congress negotiates a tax cut package to pass before August:
The Congressional Advisory Commission on Electronic Commerce studied taxation of the Internet and in 2000 concluded that the Internet should remain as tax free as possible to encourage innovation and empower individual users of the Internet as citizens, consumers, and entrepreneurs. The 20th century was all about taxing every latest invention of man under the "if it moves, tax it" paradigm. The 20th century gave us telephone tax rates of 20% and telephone tax systems that cost telecom companies millions of dollars to navigate. To prevent taxes from strangling the Interent and costing taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars, Congress enacted the Internet Tax Freedom Act in 1998, and that law has been extended until Nov 1, 2007. The Internet Tax Freedom Act stands as a great taxpayer protection.
Those who want to tax the Internet are poised to block any move in Congress to extend the law in 2007, and to watch the federal law expire. Under their scenario, state and local, and maybe even federal, taxes may begin to pop up on each consumer's monthly access charges, as well as websites, blogs and emails as soon as December 2007.
Those of us who want to preserve a tax-free Internet are working mightily to win Congressional extension of the Internet Tax Freedom Act -- this year -- 2006 -- while Senator Frist is still the majority leader. Sen. Frist helped win a temporary extension of the law three years ago. Now is the critical time, months before he is to retire, to use his good offices to extend the law permanently.
Thursday and Friday of this week -- July 20 and 21 -- are critical to the effort to raise the priority on extending the Internet Tax Freedom Act permanently. On Thursday and Friday, the Senate leadership is negotiating a tax cut package to be passed before August. It may be the last opportunity to get a tax bill through the Congress.
Key to the negotiations are Sen. Frist and Sen. Alexander. Anyone who wants a tax-free Internet needs to contact Sen. Alexander and Sen. Frist this week and let them know how important tax-free Internet access is to bloggers, consumers, people who communicate by email, and anyone who surfs the world wide web.
Posted by: L.E.G. at July 19, 2006 6:59 PM
Is neocorporatism a synonym, at least partially, for a "living constitution"?
No neocorporatism is a snynonym for good old fashiioned Italian fascism.
State and federal governments no longer apply equal application/protection of the law. These neo-fascists practice selective political application of the law. They do it not only for their government approved redevelopment plans but also to curry favor/votes with a targeted lobbyist or demographic constituency.
Comments Policy: Your comment is subject to deletion if it is off-topic or includes foul language or personal attack. Readers, please email me if you find comments that include egregious violations of this policy. Comments may not post immediately - do not post twice!
Are recent taxpayer-funded gifts to major corporations by the Tennessee legislature, with the full backing of Gov. Phil Bredesen, actually legal under the state's constitution? That's what one reader of mine wants to know after reading 