Is there another publication covering this case? NPR, whose funding comes directly from federal taxes, has an inherent conflict of interest in this case, and based on the slant of the article, they are doing little to mitigate it.
And anyway the piece isn't "slanted." In contrast to e.g. the Bloomberg piece it makes clear this is a relatively minor international tax regime issue and some of the facts are disputed. The SC isn't going to weigh in on realized vs unrealized gains writ large. I mean, a bunch of them might be assholes and idiots but they aren't fools.
It's completely true.[0] 1% of NPR's funding comes directly from the Treasury. Sure, not all of the funding comes directly from the government, but certainly enough to give NPR a financial incentive to preserve government revenue. Further, another ~10% comes indirectly through the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which is "non-governmental" but is Treasury-funded and administered by presidential appointees. CPB allocates grants to states & local stations, who use those grants in part to pay for NPR programming via fees. The law dictates that a certain percentage of CPB grants are allocated toward NPR's nationally-produced programming.
> And anyway the piece isn't "slanted." In contrast to e.g. the Bloomberg piece it makes clear this is a relatively minor international tax regime issue and some of the facts are disputed. The SC isn't going to weigh in on realized vs unrealized gains writ large. I mean, a bunch of them might be assholes and idiots but they aren't fools.
The Supreme Court is a trier of law, not facts, so factual disputes are irrelevant. Whatever unresolved factual disputes exist will be handled at the trial court level whichever way SCOTUS decides. That's just one example of the slant in the article.
The article clearly paints the Moores with a skeptical brush, both with the "disputed facts" canard and with editorializing. Sentences such as this are clearly telling me what to think rather than telling me what happened: "The Moores are portrayed as sympathetic plaintiffs in Supreme Court briefs and a video posted on the webpage of the anti-regulatory Competitive Enterprise Institute." How are they "portrayed" as "sympathetic" in briefs and in the video? Why would we ever expect plaintiffs not to be portrayed as such in their own briefs and public relations content? What purpose does this sentence serve, other than to have the reader draw a negative inference about the Moores?
The government's side of the the argument is given no such skepticism. A tax law professor and a GOP staffer who worked on the law each label a victory for the Moores as a "tsunami" and "enriched uranium," respectively, in the world of corporate tax law. NPR presents these without qualifications. These two experts constitute the vast majority of the expert opinion in the article; an expert favoring the Moores' interpretation is given a few sentences.
It ends with an accusation of hypocrisy against the US Chamber of Commerce: "As [GOP staffer] Callas caustically observes, for the chamber [US Chamber of Commerce] and other stakeholders years later "to discover constitutional concerns that they didn't raise before" strikes me as "opportunistic."" The law in question is 186 pages long. Isn't it possible - likely, even - that defects in the law exist which jeopardize the constitutionality of the law and, upon their discovery, groups which are organized against taxes might champion this position? I'm not sure how that counts as "opportunism," except insofar as the author is presenting a tendentious, slanted argument.
[0] https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/national-public-ra...
The WSJ is a good place to look for tendentious coverage. NPR- it certainly has a theory of government- that it should exist, be functional, and serve the public good. The people who work there would make that argument independent of the source of funding and in fact are inspired by the degree to which their funding comes directly from their listeners. Which is what it does. Single digit grants for non-profits are come and go.
There was a time in the 1980s and 1990s when things were different, but Joan Kroc helped changed that, as much or more than that idiot Reagan.
Best wishes to you.
What does NPR's "theory of government" have to do with anything?
> Single digit grants for non-profits are come and go.
Let me point out again the CPB allocates a relatively predictable (and monotonically increasing) budget of grants to local public broadcasting stations, and a certain percentage of those grants by law must be used to license NPR programming. CPB is funded by the federal government. It's simply not true that public radio stations and NPR are worrying whether the feds will fund them next year. If ~11% of federal funding is so irrelevant to NPR, why do they need it at all?
> The people who work there would make that argument independent of the source of funding and in fact are inspired by the degree to which their funding comes directly from their listeners.
Something like 87% of NPR listeners lean toward voting Democrat. If the argument is that they're satisfying their donors, then that suggest NPR is much more biased than if it was simply doing the duty of Congress, each house of which is approximately split in half between Republicans and Democrats.
> [T]his narrative is not even wrong. I mean that with all respect.
Thank you, I guess? Do you have any issues with the facts or inferences I actually pointed out in my argument? Did I cherry-pick some facts? Are there contrary facts which undermine my argument? Is there a flaw in my logic?
Aside from interviewing the judges potentially involved (which happens almost never?) what could they have done?
Also, every article has a bias to it. If the author on NPR led with how the tax was potentially illegal and frame it that the couple is being unjustly taxed, that would have a very different feel than this article. The NPR author could then bury quotes from the author of the law further down in the article. Order of delivery of facts and the title of the article clearly show the authors bias in a certain direction.
Here is an argument in favor of th couple. https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-supreme-court-will-finally-...
How much of the rest comes from tax-deductible corporate donations and grants from tax-free nonprofits? Almost all of it.
Since that money is not taxed, one could certainly argue that it represents a de facto tax increase on other people. That is, if the federal government needs $x/year in tax money, and Exxon doesn't pay taxes on the $y/year it gives to NPR, that tax money is going to have to be made up from someone else.
Right?