Is Election Reform Also a Tax Fairness Issue?

Like it or not, taxes and fees paid by you, me, and businesses are the income that pay for the government services we have come to expect. For these payments, we receive both direct and indirect benefit. And while some may complain about the amount or purpose of a certain tax or fee, most taxpayers accept the fact that they are necessary to keep government working.
But what would be the reaction if taxpayers knew some of their taxes were being used to fund activities of private organizations?

Most may not realize that political parties, even though they play an integral role in our governmental process, are private organizations. Their status as private organizations has been underscored by the U.S. Supreme Court in right of association cases and their tax status is covered in 26 U.S. Code § 527. Yet every two years Nevada taxpayers indirectly provide $3 – 4 million to the Republican and Democratic Parties. This amount is the cost to counties and the state of closed primary elections. These elections are open only to members of each party with the purpose of choosing the individual party’s nominees. As such, they are fulfilling a function of internal party operations. Again, this fact has been highlighted in U.S. Supreme Court decisions.

 

I believe all political parties agree that taxes, when imposed, must be fair and that all taxpayers should receive either direct or indirect benefit from their tax payments. However, using current voter registrationdata, 318,000 Nevada voters / taxpayers (25% of active registered voters) receive neither direct nor indirect benefit from tax payments used to support these two private organizations. I respect but do not agree with the arguments that if the taxpayers who currently are not registered to vote in one of the major political parties wanted to benefit from this public support of private organizations (political parties) they should simply re-register. However, this argument misses the point of why voters have left, and continue to leave both the Democratic and Republican Party.  As State Senator Patricia Farley (R – Las Vegas) recently stated to Las Vegas Review Journal Reporter Sandra Chereb, “If I’m a registered independent and I like a Republican, I shouldn’t have to change my party affiliation.”

 

Contrary to closed primary elections, general elections do provide a direct benefit to all taxpayers and as such should be funded by tax dollars. The winner of each race in the general election goes on to represent all citizens of their district in a legislative body. There are two options available to correct this tax issue.

 

The first, but likely most financially difficult, is to require the political parties to fund their closed primary. How each party raises the necessary dollars would be up to the party. However, removing public funding from such private use would be in keeping with the party’s status.

 

The second, and probably the fairest and easiest to implement, would be for the 2017 Nevada legislature to pass and enact election reform as proposed in the Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act for 2017 (NERMA – 2017). The proposed systemic changes would ensure all taxpayers receive a direct benefit and justify the use of tax dollars.