3 ms·

Are we reading the same article? Don't invent partisan issues, the article makes it clear it's not a "Republican" thing, it's an Intuit thing.

by ars 7y ago

TylerE 7y ago
Did you read it? Intuit lobbied....Republicans.
- ars 7y ago
  "In 2007, Eric Cantor (a Republican leader) and Zoe Lofgren (a Democrat from Silicon Valley) had introduced a bill to ban return-free filing. Both received contributions from Inuit." And Intuit did not lobby Republicans, it lobbied Grover Norquist.
  - jayd16 7y ago
    You mean the guy that got 95% of GOP congressmen to sign his tax pledge? Lobbying Norquist is lobbying the GOP.
- Rebelgecko 7y ago
  I suppose the lobbying could be unbalanced, but that wouldn't be consistent with the numbers when you look at campaign contributions (even if you ignore individual contributions). https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/toprecips.php?id=D000026667&cycle=2020 https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/toprecips.php?id=D000026667...
  - TylerE 7y ago
    $68k in contributions vs several million in lobbying. That's not apples and oranges, that's apples and coconuts.
    - 5874-4b22-a4e0 7y ago
      Could be that dem votes are cheaper to buy.
quasse 7y ago
FTA: >> That morning, Frommer polled his colleagues in the Assembly and found they were a vote short. No Republicans would vote for the bill, and some Democrats would vote ‘no’ too. >> Once again, Intuit had blocked ReadyReturn. It's definitely an Intuit thing, but being bought by Intuit seems to be a majority Republican thing.
- ars 7y ago
  > but being bought by Intuit seems to be a majority Republican thing. That's not what the article says though. It says Intuit bought Grover Norquist, who then caused Republicans to vote against it (but not because of money they got). And it says: "In 2007, Eric Cantor (a Republican leader) and Zoe Lofgren (a Democrat from Silicon Valley) had introduced a bill to ban return-free filing. Both received contributions from Inuit."
ssalazar 7y ago
The vote for the CA bill was effectively along partisan lines and national opposition to tax filing reform receives significant financial/political support from Grover Norquist.
cweagans 7y ago
In the 2004 and 2006 election cycle, Intuit donated substantially more to Republicans than Democrats: https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/totals.php?id=D000026667 https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/totals.php?id=D000026667 Bush campaigned on (among other things) rewriting and simplifying the tax code. Bush's executive order pushing that forward was signed January 2005: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13369 https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13369 Maybe Intuit's donations and lobbying were not caused by that, but doesn't it seem really strange that a popular initiative suddenly changed direction after a big pile of money was given to Republicans? Politicians shouldn't be willing to change their stance for money. It's as much Intuit's fault as it is the people that took the money.
wy35 7y ago
The article clearly states that Intuit deliberately used Republicans to lobby against ReadyReturn. Intuit had just given $1 million to a Republican running to unseat John Chiang, an FTB member who supported ReadyReturn. The chair of the FTB, Steve Westly, says the support drummed up by Bankman gave them more political space to vote for a program they felt strongly about. Let's not ignore the fact that the Republican platform fundamentally lines up closer to Intuit's business interests. When Ronald Reagan was governor of California, he opposed a reform that would make paying taxes more seamless on the grounds that “paying taxes should hurt.” ... That morning, Frommer polled his colleagues in the Assembly and found they were a vote short. No Republicans would vote for the bill, and some Democrats would vote ‘no’ too.

Are we reading the same article? Don't invent partisan issues, the article makes it clear it's not a "Republican" thing, it's an Intuit thing.

by ars 7y ago

Are we reading the same article? Don't invent partisan issues, the article makes it clear it's not a "Republican" thing, it's an Intuit thing.

TylerE 7y ago

Did you read it? Intuit lobbied....Republicans.

ars 7y ago
"In 2007, Eric Cantor (a Republican leader) and Zoe Lofgren (a Democrat from Silicon Valley) had introduced a bill to ban return-free filing. Both received contributions from Inuit." And Intuit did not lobby Republicans, it lobbied Grover Norquist.
- jayd16 7y ago
  You mean the guy that got 95% of GOP congressmen to sign his tax pledge? Lobbying Norquist is lobbying the GOP.
Rebelgecko 7y ago
I suppose the lobbying could be unbalanced, but that wouldn't be consistent with the numbers when you look at campaign contributions (even if you ignore individual contributions). https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/toprecips.php?id=D000026667&cycle=2020 https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/toprecips.php?id=D000026667...
- TylerE 7y ago
  $68k in contributions vs several million in lobbying. That's not apples and oranges, that's apples and coconuts.
  - 5874-4b22-a4e0 7y ago
    Could be that dem votes are cheaper to buy.

quasse 7y ago

FTA: >> That morning, Frommer polled his colleagues in the Assembly and found they were a vote short. No Republicans would vote for the bill, and some Democrats would vote ‘no’ too. >> Once again, Intuit had blocked ReadyReturn. It's definitely an Intuit thing, but being bought by Intuit seems to be a majority Republican thing.

ars 7y ago
> but being bought by Intuit seems to be a majority Republican thing. That's not what the article says though. It says Intuit bought Grover Norquist, who then caused Republicans to vote against it (but not because of money they got). And it says: "In 2007, Eric Cantor (a Republican leader) and Zoe Lofgren (a Democrat from Silicon Valley) had introduced a bill to ban return-free filing. Both received contributions from Inuit."

ssalazar 7y ago

The vote for the CA bill was effectively along partisan lines and national opposition to tax filing reform receives significant financial/political support from Grover Norquist.

cweagans 7y ago

In the 2004 and 2006 election cycle, Intuit donated substantially more to Republicans than Democrats: https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/totals.php?id=D000026667 https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/totals.php?id=D000026667 Bush campaigned on (among other things) rewriting and simplifying the tax code. Bush's executive order pushing that forward was signed January 2005: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13369 https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13369 Maybe Intuit's donations and lobbying were not caused by that, but doesn't it seem really strange that a popular initiative suddenly changed direction after a big pile of money was given to Republicans? Politicians shouldn't be willing to change their stance for money. It's as much Intuit's fault as it is the people that took the money.

wy35 7y ago

The article clearly states that Intuit deliberately used Republicans to lobby against ReadyReturn. Intuit had just given $1 million to a Republican running to unseat John Chiang, an FTB member who supported ReadyReturn. The chair of the FTB, Steve Westly, says the support drummed up by Bankman gave them more political space to vote for a program they felt strongly about. Let's not ignore the fact that the Republican platform fundamentally lines up closer to Intuit's business interests. When Ronald Reagan was governor of California, he opposed a reform that would make paying taxes more seamless on the grounds that “paying taxes should hurt.” ... That morning, Frommer polled his colleagues in the Assembly and found they were a vote short. No Republicans would vote for the bill, and some Democrats would vote ‘no’ too.