News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:H&R Block and Intuit Lobby Against Free and Simple Tax Fi... by rayiner on Sunday January 20, 2019 @11:28PM (#18957639)
There are three different things wrong with your argument.

1) Even if your premises were true, which they are not (see below), your theory of causation is simply unworkable. Intuit and H&R Block spend a combined $5 million a year on lobbying. If that were enough to even significantly influence tax policy, we could crowd fund opposition, not to mention some altruistic millionaire. Or all the tons of companies who would benefit from simplified tax filing? You don’t think there are enough forces opposed to complicated tax filing that they couldn’t muster up a measly $5 million a year to hire some lobbyists? That’s completely not believable.

2) You’re mixing up lobbying and campaign contributions. Intuit and H&R Block are not able to “contribute large sums of money” to any politicians. Lobbying is different—hiring people to tell politicians why they should support one policy over another; arm them with data and arguments to use against their opponents; draft proposed legislation; etc.

3) Citizens United doesn’t have anything to do with lobbying. It’s about companies spending their own money to air political ads. If Intuit and H&R Block were running ads trying to convince people to vote for politicians who support complicated tax filing, then Citizens United would be relevant.

Re:H&R Block and Intuit Lobby Against Free and Simple Tax Fi... by tacomonstrous on Monday January 21, 2019 @09:12AM (#18960446)
>Citizens United doesn’t have anything to do with lobbying. It’s about companies spending their own money to air political ads. If Intuit and H&R Block were running ads trying to convince people to vote for politicians who support complicated tax filing, then Citizens United would be relevant.

While this is true in the literal sense of what the case was about, I find it disingenuous to claim that this is the only impact it had. The rise of 'Super PACs' is correlated directly with the decision. Here's an extract from Wikipedia for instance:

>Certainly, the holding in Citizens United helped affirm the legal basis for super PACs by deciding that, for purposes of establishing a "compelling government interest" of corruption sufficient to justify government limitations on political speech, "independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption".

Re:H&R Block and Intuit Lobby Against Free and Simple Tax Fi... by rayiner on Monday January 21, 2019 @11:36AM (#18961446)
SuperPACs can’t make campaign contributions, so that whole part of OP’s post is irrelevant. They can engage in political advertising. But I’ve never seen a political ad funded by Intuit or H&R Block. OP is mixing up two completely different and unrelated things.
Re:H&R Block and Intuit Lobby Against Free and Simple Tax Fi... by tacomonstrous on Monday January 21, 2019 @12:12PM (#18961740)
> But I’ve never seen a political ad funded by Intuit or H&R Block

Surely you must be aware that Super PACs can agglomerate money from various sources that don't need to announce their participation at the end of every commercial. I do not know if this is the case for Intuit, but it would be supremely naive to believe that it isn't.

Re:H&R Block and Intuit Lobby Against Free and Simple Tax Fi... by Jolter on Monday January 21, 2019 @07:28AM (#18959888)
Reading your point #1, it looks to me like you are confusing "thing that really ought to happen" with "thing that automatically happens without anyone having to step up and act". Of course we could crowdfund opposition, so get to it already!