In response, lawmakers in several Democratic controlled
states have proposed imposing a 100 percent tax on payments distributed through
the fund. Their argument is straightforward. If the federal government chooses
to distribute taxpayer dollars in a manner they believe is improper, states
should have the ability to prevent residents from benefiting from those
payments.
As with many modern political disputes, public conversation
quickly became focused on personalities and political affiliations. Supporters
of the fund view it as compensation for individuals harmed by government
overreach. Opponents view it as an abuse of taxpayer resources. Depending on
political affiliation, many people have already chosen a side. Yet I believe
the most important questions may lie elsewhere.
Before asking whether recipients should receive
compensation, we should first understand what is being proposed and how such a
program would function. Unlike a court judgment, these payments would not be
awarded by a jury following a trial. They would not represent damages awarded
through a successful lawsuit against the government. Instead, the proposed
payments would originate from a compensation fund established through executive
action and settlement arrangements. Understanding that distinction is important
because the legal and constitutional questions surrounding an executive compensation
fund may differ significantly from those involving a court judgment.
That distinction does not determine whether the fund is appropriate.
It simply helps define what is being discussed. More importantly, it raises a
series of questions that should concern citizens regardless of political
affiliation. Those questions include who determines eligibility, what standards
would be used to decide who receives compensation, what evidence would be
required, would there be an appeals process, and would there be independent
oversight? Additional questions which came to my mind while looking into this are:
would there be congressional oversight, judicial review, or some other
mechanism to ensure accountability? If a compensation fund is ultimately deemed
lawful, these questions matter.
The public should not merely ask who receives money but
should also ask how those decisions are made. Healthy institutions are built
upon transparent processes, consistent standards, and meaningful oversight.
Citizens often focus on outcomes because outcomes are visible. The process is
often less visible but far more important over the long term. A fair process can
sometimes produce outcomes we dislike; likewise, an unfair process can
sometimes produce outcomes we agree with. Yet over time, the strength of
institutions is determined more by the integrity of their processes than by the
popularity of any particular outcome.
At the time of writing, many details regarding the
administration, governance, oversight, eligibility requirements, and
distribution process for the proposed compensation fund remain unclear or
subject to ongoing legal review. Some readers may view that uncertainty as a
reason to postpone discussion until more information becomes available, but I
view it differently. Questions of governance are often most valuable before
systems become entrenched, before funds begin to flow, and before legal and
political positions harden into opposing camps. Once a program is operational,
public debate frequently shifts toward defending or opposing outcomes. The
opportunity to examine the structure itself becomes far more limited. For that reason,
the discussion is worth having.
In fact, one could argue that this is precisely when we
should be asking these questions. Once eligibility standards are established, oversight
structures are implemented, funds begin to flow, and legal challenges begin
working their way through the courts, much of the public discussion will
naturally shift toward defending or opposing specific outcomes. By then, the
underlying structural decisions may already have been made. Whether one ultimately
supports or opposes this fund is secondary to a more fundamental question: are
we satisfied with the process by which such decisions will be made? If people
wait until every detail has been finalized before engaging in the conversation,
they may discover that the most important questions should have been asked much
earlier. The absence of answers is not a reason to avoid the discussion. It is
the reason the discussion should occur.
At Holy Shock, one of the foundational principles that
guides many of our discussions is the belief that laws matter. Laws are not perfect,
governments are not perfect, and institutions are not perfect, yet despite these
imperfections, laws and institutions provide the framework that allows society
to function without descending into chaos. They establish expectations,
consequences, and accountability. Without them, every dispute becomes a matter
of personal interpretation, political power, or force. For that reason,
individuals who violate a law should generally be held accountable for their
actions regardless of political affiliation, ideology, race, religion, or
social status.
To be clear, if individuals unlawfully entered the United
States Capitol, assaulted law enforcement officers, damaged property, or interfered
in lawful government processes, those actions should be investigated and prosecuted
according to law. Likewise, if public officials engage in corruption, if
organizations commit fraud against taxpayers, or if individuals misuse public
resources, those actions should also be investigated and prosecuted according
to law. The principle should not change simply because we agree or disagree
with the person involved.
This concept is not unique to American law. Scripture
contains guidance regarding civic responsibility and respect for lawful
authority. In Romans 13, believers are instructed to respect governing
authorities. In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus instructs listeners to render unto
Caesar what belongs to Caeser and unto God what belongs to God. Neither passage
suggests that governments are incapable of error. Rather, they recognize that
orderly societies require systems of authority, accountability, and
responsibility. For me personally, this means I do not support unlawful actions
simply because they are committed by individuals who share my political views,
nor do I support excusing misconduct because the target of enforcement happens
to be someone I oppose. If the law has been broken, accountability should
follow.
That brings us to the question that I believe matters most.
The question is not whether I support the compensation fund. The question is
not whether I support a one hundred percent tax on the compensation fund. The
question is what principles and powers are being established in the process. That
question matters because history suggests that governmental powers rarely
remain frozen in time. The United States has repeatedly experienced situations
where authorities granted for a single purpose were later applied more broadly
than originally envisioned.
Civil asset forfeiture provides one example. Originally
promoted as a tool to combat organized crime and large-scale drug trafficking,
civil asset forfeiture gradually expanded into situations where property could
be seized even when criminal convictions never occurred. Regardless of where
one stands on the issue today, it serves as a reminder that governmental
authorities often evolve beyond their original purpose. Another example is that
of emergency powers. Governments frequently acquire temporary authorities during
periods of crisis, yet history has repeatedly demonstrated that temporary
powers can become permanent features of governance when future leaders find
those powers useful. What about surveillance authorities? Powers created to
address specific threats have often expanded alongside advances in technology
and changing political priorities. The original justification may change, but
the authority itself frequently remains available for future use.
None of these examples are identical to the current topic,
but they do illustrate an important reality. Political leaders change,
administrations change, parties change, but the powers available to government
often remain. This is where the proposed taxation strategy raises questions
that extend far beyond the current political moment. If governments establish
the principle that specific forms of compensation can be targeted for unique
taxation because lawmakers disagree with the recipients or the underlying
purpose of the payment, what limits future applications of that authority?
Could future lawmakers attempt to target compensation
programs they find politically objectionable to them? Could benefits, settlements,
or compensation funds become increasingly vulnerable to political retaliation?
Could tax policy become a mechanism for indirectly nullifying decisions made by
other branches or levels of government? These are not predictions or
accusations, but they are questions about precedent. More specifically, they
are questions about institutional incentives. Governments naturally seek tools
that help advance policy objectives. Once a tool becomes available and is
deemed lawful, future officials often have incentives to consider whether it
can be applied elsewhere. That does not mean abuse is inevitable. It does mean
citizens should carefully evaluate new powers before they become normalized.
It is very important to me to clarify that this discussion
is not intended to argue. Nothing in this article should be interpreted as
support for unlawful conduct related to the events of January 6, 2021.
Individuals who violated the law should be investigated, prosecuted, and held
accountable through established legal processes, as was stated earlier.
Likewise, nothing in this article should be interpreted as an endorsement of
the proposed compensation fund itself. Questions surrounding the legality,
governance, oversight, transparency, and administration of such a fund deserve
serious public scrutiny. Citizens have every right to ask who controls the
money, who determines eligibility, what standards apply, and what safeguards
exist to ensure accountability. The purpose of this discussion is not to defend
any specific recipient, political movement, administration or policy proposal.
Rather, the purpose is to examine a broader principle.
It is entirely possible that this compensation fund is
ultimately found to be lawful, appropriately governed, and beneficial. It is
equally possible that the proposed state taxation efforts are found to be
lawful, justified, and consistent with existing constitutional principles. The
purpose of this discussion is not to prejudge those outcomes. Instead the
purpose is to encourage examination of the authorities, processes, and precedents
being established before those determinations are made.
Throughout history, citizens have often focused on whether a
particular power achieves an outcome they support. The more difficult question
is whether the underlying power remains appropriate when political control
changes hands and future governments inherit the same authority. The concern
raised here is not primarily about today’s political actors. It is about the
institutional powers and precedents that may remain available to tomorrow’s
political actors. That distinction matters because political controversies
eventually fade, while government authorities often endure long after the
circumstances that originally justified them have passed away.
Whether this compensation fund ultimately survives legal
scrutiny, whether the proposed state taxation efforts succeed, and whether any
payments are ever distributed remain uncertain. What is certain is that you and
I have a responsibility to ask questions whenever governments seek new
authorities, new mechanisms, or new ways of exercising power. Not because every
proposal is harmful, not because every proposal is unconstitutional, but because
healthy democracies depend upon informed citizens who are willing to examine
not only the outcomes they desire today, but also the precedents they may be
establishing for tomorrow. The most important questions are often asked before
the answers are known and sometimes the questions themselves help shape the
future.