Ethical Consumer's Boycott Amazon campaign

To contact us Click HERE
Following excellent actions by the tax protesters UK Uncut on the weekend, Ethical Consumer magazine in the UK has launched a Boycott Amazon campaign, on account of its well documented tax avoidance in the country (and in many others.)

The pitch is simple:

"We all have to pay taxes. They fund our schools and hospitals. But some companies aren't paying their fair share. In 2011 Amazon's sales in the UK were £2.9 billion but they only paid £1.8 million in corporation tax. Consumer power can make Amazon pay a fair rate of tax."

This is quite right. This company is free riding on the benefits of society, and asking others to pay the costs associated with creating those benefits.

Ethical consumer provides some helpful alternatives;

Debenhams - Paid 22% tax on its profits for 2012.
Debenhams online offers everything from fashion to furniture.

John Lewis - Paid 35% tax on its profits for 2012.
John Lewis online offers virtually everything that's available on Amazon with the exception of books.

Lush –   Paid 42% tax on its profits for 2011.
Lush online offers an extensive range of handmade cosmetics.

Marks and Spencer –   Paid 27% tax on its profits for 2012.
Marks and Spencer online offers everything from frocks to food.

Next – Paid 26% tax on its profits for 2012.
Next online offers everything from evening wear to electricals.

Of course we always recommend that you support your local shops before you hit the big High Street chains.

That last sentence is important. Local businesses without international operations will (almost by definition) not be using tax havens to cut their tax bills. They are being killed in markets by multinationals on a factor - tax - that has nothing to do with real productivity, and everything to do with transferring wealth away from other taxpayers elsewhere. (Read more arguments on this here.) Ethical Consumer again, on the alternatives to Amazon:

"Where do I buy my books?

Support your local bookshop if possible. Phone first to order titles.

In a reversal of Amazon’s famously unpopular suggestion to browse books first in a High Street bookshop and then buy them cheaper online, it's quite fun to browse for books first on Amazon and then buy them from a tax-paying local bookstore.

A good option is newsfromnowhere.org.uk a workers co-operative and radical bookshop.

hive.co.uk is another good alternative initiative combining online shopping with supporting local book stores.

Search on Amazon Marketplace and then buy the book you want directly from the seller by searching for it elsewhere online.

Other good options for second hand books are betterworldbooks.co.uk and Oxfam Books."

 More from TJN, and more detail on this important subject, in due course.

Google's tax tricks: new video commentary

To contact us Click HERE
This short video commentary nicely brings out the lunacy and artificiality at the heart of the corporate tax avoidance by Google, the third largest donor to President Obama's re-election efforts in 2012.


"Dutch Sandwich for them, sh*t sandwich for the taxpayer. And I am sick of it."

For a fuller explanation, read Jesse Drucker's original story, or, for more context, watch "We're Not Broke."

Rahm's real fight

To contact us Click HERE
As I write this, the Illinois Supreme Court has ruled that they will hear the case that will determine if Rahm Emanuel, the former Illinois Congressman and White House Chief of Staff, can run for Mayor of Chicago. The ruling also has halted all ballots being printed until they make a final determination.

The issue is whether Emanuel has truly established residency to run for the office. There is a law that says a person running for mayor in an Illinois municipality must be resident of that municipality for one year before the election. There is also another law that says a person voting in any Illinois election must establish residency for one year prior to the election, unless said person is called into service for the United States of America.

Emanuel has a home in Chicago, for he was the Congressman for Illinois' 5th District from 2003 to 2009. Ironically, he replaced Rod Blagojevich in Congress. In January of 2009, he became the Chief of Staff for President Obama. He resigned in October of 2010 to run for mayor of his hometown.

Emanuel contends that he meets the residency requirement to be a voter in the upcoming election, thus making him a qualified elector, and therefore a qualified candidate for mayor. He claims that his service as Chief of Staff qualifies for the service to the United States exemption. The Chicago Board of Elections agreed with that premise and qualified him as a candidate.

However, that ruling was challenged to the Illinois Appellate Court and that court overturned their ruling. Unfortunately, I agree with the Appellate Court and I believe the Illinois Supreme Court will also. The problem for Emanuel is that while he may qualify as a voter for the election, the law concerning the qualifications as a candidate are clear and distinct. The fact that he has not been a resident of the state for one year prior to the election, and that absence is documented, Rahm Emanuel is not qualified to run for Mayor of Chicago.

It is a shame because he was the leading candidate going into the February 22nd primary. He campaigned on a positive vision for the city and was not only well-funded, but well-organized also. The main beneficiary of Emanuel leaving the race will more likely be former U.S. Senator Carol Moseley Braun, who has also campaigned as a healer, not a divider.

If the Illinois Supreme Court rules otherwise it will be a surprise, but it is a tough fight that Emanuel has to engage in and in the long run, it will bring some clarity to Chicago politics, which would be a rare, but welcome, moment indeed.

My thoughts on Mississippi's Nov. Initiatives

To contact us Click HERE
As usual, while most Mississippi voters are focused on individuals seeking the various statewide, legislative and county offices, many may not be aware that there are three initiatives on the ballot as well that will impact their lives greatly. Below is my take on those initiatives and where I stand on them. I will start with Initiative #31: Should government be prohibited from taking private property by eminent domain and then transferring it to other persons? Initiative #31 would amend the Mississippi Constitution to prohibit state and local government from taking private property by eminent domain and then conveying it to other persons or private businesses for a period of 10 years after acquisition. Exceptions from the prohibition include drainage and levee facilities, roads, bridges, ports, airports, common carriers, and utilities. The prohibition would not apply in certain situations, including public nuisance, structures unfit for human habitation, or abandoned property. During my time in the Mississippi House of Representatives, this issue showed its importance as we were trying to figure out how to get Nissan to locate their new plant in Canton. We committed millions of dollars in infrastructure development which included the use of eminent domain to make that happen. Eminent domain, which is the attainment of private property for public use, in that regard was a positive because it was used for public projects but it was clear it was beneficial for a private economic development interest. This initiative will clarify in the Mississippi Constitution that eminent domain is only supposed to be used for public projects. It will prohibit eminent domain to be used, for example, to acquire land for the building of a strip mall, factory or an office building. The Farm Bureau has taken the lead in pushing this initiative because any expansion of eminent domain for private economic development would immediately threaten the largest group of landowners in the state, our farmers. I will vote YES on this initiative. Initiative #27: Should the Mississippi Constitution be amended to require a person to submit government issued photo identification in order to vote? Initiative #27 would amend the Mississippi Constitution to require voters to submit a government issued photo identification before being allowed to vote; provides that any voter lacking government issued photo identification may obtain photo identification without charge from the Mississippi Department of Public Safety; and exempts certain residents of state-licensed care facilities and religious objectors from being required to show photo identification in order to vote. One of the most emotional days during my tenure in the Legislature was when we had to take a vote on making Voter ID mandatory, so much so that I wrote a column about it in the Jackson Free Press. Every member spoke on the floor and expressed their feelings, either in support or opposition, and afterwards many of us became closer, despite competing political philosophies. Needless to say this is an emotional issue to members of the African-American community that remember poll taxes and questions like how many bubbles are there in a bar of soap. Voter ID seems like a practical, innocuous argument to preserve the integrity of the voting process. However, it has been used to suppress voter turnout for certain groups in other states. In Tennessee, a 96-year-old Black woman was denied the right to vote recently because she did not have a driver's license. In Florida, college students cannot use their college IDs, even if they attend state universities. The author of the initiative, Sen. Joey Fillingane (R-Lamar County), organized the initiative drive after killing the Voter ID bill passed by the House in the Senate. His argument was that there needed to be a "clean" Voter ID bill, without provisions that would have allowed early voting, same-day registration and restoring the suffrage of first-time felons once they have served out their sentence. It is questionable whether the US Department of Justice will approve a Constitutional Amendment that requires Voter ID for all voters, but it is very possible. It is the only initiative that has a cost attached to it. It is estimated that the initiative, if passed, could cost as much as $1.5 million from the Department of Public Safety budget. Obviously the proponents of the measure do not feel strongly enough to convince the state's 82 Circuit Clerks to provide photos on the voter registration cards they provide in their respective counties. I will vote NO on this initiative. Initiative #26: Should the term “person” be defined to include every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning, or the equivalent thereof? Initiative #26 would amend the Mississippi Constitution to define the word “person” or “persons”, as those terms are used in Article III of the state constitution, to include every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning, or the functional equivalent thereof. I am considered a pro-life politician. I was endorsed by Pro-Life Mississippi when I served in the House. I am opposed to abortion, an emergency medical procedure, being used as a form of birth/population control. I am a strong proponent of adoption and a former abstinence-only counselor. I voted for the House Bill that banned abortions in this state, but I was also the author of the amendment in that same bill that allowed exceptions for rape, incest and the health of the mother. As a Christian, I believe life begins at conception and that God has predestined our lives before our existence on this earth begins. However, I have also made the argument that the US Constitution and the Mississippi Constitution are not the 67th and 68th books of the Holy Bible. To redefine "person/persons" in Article III of the Mississippi Constitution would effectively ban abortions in this state, but how broad of a swath will this provision cut? Medical professionals are divided on whether the initiative would prevent in vitro fertilization and outlaw forms of conventional birth control. Would family planning activities be possibly outlawed? Would the exceptions of rape, incest and the health of the mother be considered? Here is another scenario that has not be broached: Say an immigrant couple from El Salvador comes to Mississippi without proper documentation. The wife becomes pregnant in Mississippi and then they are caught. At that point, the deportation process begins. If the personhood initiative is passed, does that fetus, which would be considered a person in the Mississippi Constitution have the right to stay, thus preventing the mother from being deported? If the Federal Government is successful in deporting the mother, can the child come back and petition for US Citizenship based on the notion it was conceived in Mississippi and was considered a person by that state's Constitution? This initiative has failed twice in Colorado, but will be introduced in four other states. The Mississippi initiative supporters' strategy is for this initiative to be challenged and struck down in the Federal Courts, moved up in the Federal docket to the Supreme Court of the United States, thus forcing them to re-visit the Roe v. Wade decision. I consider this an extreme action based on a constitutionally extreme political philosophy. I will vote NO on this initiative. Those are my positions. Research these initiatives for yourself and then cast your vote on November 8th.

Rahm's real fight

To contact us Click HERE
As I write this, the Illinois Supreme Court has ruled that they will hear the case that will determine if Rahm Emanuel, the former Illinois Congressman and White House Chief of Staff, can run for Mayor of Chicago. The ruling also has halted all ballots being printed until they make a final determination.

The issue is whether Emanuel has truly established residency to run for the office. There is a law that says a person running for mayor in an Illinois municipality must be resident of that municipality for one year before the election. There is also another law that says a person voting in any Illinois election must establish residency for one year prior to the election, unless said person is called into service for the United States of America.

Emanuel has a home in Chicago, for he was the Congressman for Illinois' 5th District from 2003 to 2009. Ironically, he replaced Rod Blagojevich in Congress. In January of 2009, he became the Chief of Staff for President Obama. He resigned in October of 2010 to run for mayor of his hometown.

Emanuel contends that he meets the residency requirement to be a voter in the upcoming election, thus making him a qualified elector, and therefore a qualified candidate for mayor. He claims that his service as Chief of Staff qualifies for the service to the United States exemption. The Chicago Board of Elections agreed with that premise and qualified him as a candidate.

However, that ruling was challenged to the Illinois Appellate Court and that court overturned their ruling. Unfortunately, I agree with the Appellate Court and I believe the Illinois Supreme Court will also. The problem for Emanuel is that while he may qualify as a voter for the election, the law concerning the qualifications as a candidate are clear and distinct. The fact that he has not been a resident of the state for one year prior to the election, and that absence is documented, Rahm Emanuel is not qualified to run for Mayor of Chicago.

It is a shame because he was the leading candidate going into the February 22nd primary. He campaigned on a positive vision for the city and was not only well-funded, but well-organized also. The main beneficiary of Emanuel leaving the race will more likely be former U.S. Senator Carol Moseley Braun, who has also campaigned as a healer, not a divider.

If the Illinois Supreme Court rules otherwise it will be a surprise, but it is a tough fight that Emanuel has to engage in and in the long run, it will bring some clarity to Chicago politics, which would be a rare, but welcome, moment indeed.

My thoughts on Mississippi's Nov. Initiatives

To contact us Click HERE
As usual, while most Mississippi voters are focused on individuals seeking the various statewide, legislative and county offices, many may not be aware that there are three initiatives on the ballot as well that will impact their lives greatly. Below is my take on those initiatives and where I stand on them. I will start with Initiative #31: Should government be prohibited from taking private property by eminent domain and then transferring it to other persons? Initiative #31 would amend the Mississippi Constitution to prohibit state and local government from taking private property by eminent domain and then conveying it to other persons or private businesses for a period of 10 years after acquisition. Exceptions from the prohibition include drainage and levee facilities, roads, bridges, ports, airports, common carriers, and utilities. The prohibition would not apply in certain situations, including public nuisance, structures unfit for human habitation, or abandoned property. During my time in the Mississippi House of Representatives, this issue showed its importance as we were trying to figure out how to get Nissan to locate their new plant in Canton. We committed millions of dollars in infrastructure development which included the use of eminent domain to make that happen. Eminent domain, which is the attainment of private property for public use, in that regard was a positive because it was used for public projects but it was clear it was beneficial for a private economic development interest. This initiative will clarify in the Mississippi Constitution that eminent domain is only supposed to be used for public projects. It will prohibit eminent domain to be used, for example, to acquire land for the building of a strip mall, factory or an office building. The Farm Bureau has taken the lead in pushing this initiative because any expansion of eminent domain for private economic development would immediately threaten the largest group of landowners in the state, our farmers. I will vote YES on this initiative. Initiative #27: Should the Mississippi Constitution be amended to require a person to submit government issued photo identification in order to vote? Initiative #27 would amend the Mississippi Constitution to require voters to submit a government issued photo identification before being allowed to vote; provides that any voter lacking government issued photo identification may obtain photo identification without charge from the Mississippi Department of Public Safety; and exempts certain residents of state-licensed care facilities and religious objectors from being required to show photo identification in order to vote. One of the most emotional days during my tenure in the Legislature was when we had to take a vote on making Voter ID mandatory, so much so that I wrote a column about it in the Jackson Free Press. Every member spoke on the floor and expressed their feelings, either in support or opposition, and afterwards many of us became closer, despite competing political philosophies. Needless to say this is an emotional issue to members of the African-American community that remember poll taxes and questions like how many bubbles are there in a bar of soap. Voter ID seems like a practical, innocuous argument to preserve the integrity of the voting process. However, it has been used to suppress voter turnout for certain groups in other states. In Tennessee, a 96-year-old Black woman was denied the right to vote recently because she did not have a driver's license. In Florida, college students cannot use their college IDs, even if they attend state universities. The author of the initiative, Sen. Joey Fillingane (R-Lamar County), organized the initiative drive after killing the Voter ID bill passed by the House in the Senate. His argument was that there needed to be a "clean" Voter ID bill, without provisions that would have allowed early voting, same-day registration and restoring the suffrage of first-time felons once they have served out their sentence. It is questionable whether the US Department of Justice will approve a Constitutional Amendment that requires Voter ID for all voters, but it is very possible. It is the only initiative that has a cost attached to it. It is estimated that the initiative, if passed, could cost as much as $1.5 million from the Department of Public Safety budget. Obviously the proponents of the measure do not feel strongly enough to convince the state's 82 Circuit Clerks to provide photos on the voter registration cards they provide in their respective counties. I will vote NO on this initiative. Initiative #26: Should the term “person” be defined to include every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning, or the equivalent thereof? Initiative #26 would amend the Mississippi Constitution to define the word “person” or “persons”, as those terms are used in Article III of the state constitution, to include every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning, or the functional equivalent thereof. I am considered a pro-life politician. I was endorsed by Pro-Life Mississippi when I served in the House. I am opposed to abortion, an emergency medical procedure, being used as a form of birth/population control. I am a strong proponent of adoption and a former abstinence-only counselor. I voted for the House Bill that banned abortions in this state, but I was also the author of the amendment in that same bill that allowed exceptions for rape, incest and the health of the mother. As a Christian, I believe life begins at conception and that God has predestined our lives before our existence on this earth begins. However, I have also made the argument that the US Constitution and the Mississippi Constitution are not the 67th and 68th books of the Holy Bible. To redefine "person/persons" in Article III of the Mississippi Constitution would effectively ban abortions in this state, but how broad of a swath will this provision cut? Medical professionals are divided on whether the initiative would prevent in vitro fertilization and outlaw forms of conventional birth control. Would family planning activities be possibly outlawed? Would the exceptions of rape, incest and the health of the mother be considered? Here is another scenario that has not be broached: Say an immigrant couple from El Salvador comes to Mississippi without proper documentation. The wife becomes pregnant in Mississippi and then they are caught. At that point, the deportation process begins. If the personhood initiative is passed, does that fetus, which would be considered a person in the Mississippi Constitution have the right to stay, thus preventing the mother from being deported? If the Federal Government is successful in deporting the mother, can the child come back and petition for US Citizenship based on the notion it was conceived in Mississippi and was considered a person by that state's Constitution? This initiative has failed twice in Colorado, but will be introduced in four other states. The Mississippi initiative supporters' strategy is for this initiative to be challenged and struck down in the Federal Courts, moved up in the Federal docket to the Supreme Court of the United States, thus forcing them to re-visit the Roe v. Wade decision. I consider this an extreme action based on a constitutionally extreme political philosophy. I will vote NO on this initiative. Those are my positions. Research these initiatives for yourself and then cast your vote on November 8th.

Ethical Consumer's Boycott Amazon campaign

To contact us Click HERE
Following excellent actions by the tax protesters UK Uncut on the weekend, Ethical Consumer magazine in the UK has launched a Boycott Amazon campaign, on account of its well documented tax avoidance in the country (and in many others.)

The pitch is simple:

"We all have to pay taxes. They fund our schools and hospitals. But some companies aren't paying their fair share. In 2011 Amazon's sales in the UK were £2.9 billion but they only paid £1.8 million in corporation tax. Consumer power can make Amazon pay a fair rate of tax."

This is quite right. This company is free riding on the benefits of society, and asking others to pay the costs associated with creating those benefits.

Ethical consumer provides some helpful alternatives;

Debenhams - Paid 22% tax on its profits for 2012.
Debenhams online offers everything from fashion to furniture.

John Lewis - Paid 35% tax on its profits for 2012.
John Lewis online offers virtually everything that's available on Amazon with the exception of books.

Lush –   Paid 42% tax on its profits for 2011.
Lush online offers an extensive range of handmade cosmetics.

Marks and Spencer –   Paid 27% tax on its profits for 2012.
Marks and Spencer online offers everything from frocks to food.

Next – Paid 26% tax on its profits for 2012.
Next online offers everything from evening wear to electricals.

Of course we always recommend that you support your local shops before you hit the big High Street chains.

That last sentence is important. Local businesses without international operations will (almost by definition) not be using tax havens to cut their tax bills. They are being killed in markets by multinationals on a factor - tax - that has nothing to do with real productivity, and everything to do with transferring wealth away from other taxpayers elsewhere. (Read more arguments on this here.) Ethical Consumer again, on the alternatives to Amazon:

"Where do I buy my books?

Support your local bookshop if possible. Phone first to order titles.

In a reversal of Amazon’s famously unpopular suggestion to browse books first in a High Street bookshop and then buy them cheaper online, it's quite fun to browse for books first on Amazon and then buy them from a tax-paying local bookstore.

A good option is newsfromnowhere.org.uk a workers co-operative and radical bookshop.

hive.co.uk is another good alternative initiative combining online shopping with supporting local book stores.

Search on Amazon Marketplace and then buy the book you want directly from the seller by searching for it elsewhere online.

Other good options for second hand books are betterworldbooks.co.uk and Oxfam Books."

 More from TJN, and more detail on this important subject, in due course.

Google's tax tricks: new video commentary

To contact us Click HERE
This short video commentary nicely brings out the lunacy and artificiality at the heart of the corporate tax avoidance by Google, the third largest donor to President Obama's re-election efforts in 2012.


"Dutch Sandwich for them, sh*t sandwich for the taxpayer. And I am sick of it."

For a fuller explanation, read Jesse Drucker's original story, or, for more context, watch "We're Not Broke."

Ethical Consumer's Boycott Amazon campaign

To contact us Click HERE
Following excellent actions by the tax protesters UK Uncut on the weekend, Ethical Consumer magazine in the UK has launched a Boycott Amazon campaign, on account of its well documented tax avoidance in the country (and in many others.)

The pitch is simple:

"We all have to pay taxes. They fund our schools and hospitals. But some companies aren't paying their fair share. In 2011 Amazon's sales in the UK were £2.9 billion but they only paid £1.8 million in corporation tax. Consumer power can make Amazon pay a fair rate of tax."

This is quite right. This company is free riding on the benefits of society, and asking others to pay the costs associated with creating those benefits.

Ethical consumer provides some helpful alternatives;

Debenhams - Paid 22% tax on its profits for 2012.
Debenhams online offers everything from fashion to furniture.

John Lewis - Paid 35% tax on its profits for 2012.
John Lewis online offers virtually everything that's available on Amazon with the exception of books.

Lush –   Paid 42% tax on its profits for 2011.
Lush online offers an extensive range of handmade cosmetics.

Marks and Spencer –   Paid 27% tax on its profits for 2012.
Marks and Spencer online offers everything from frocks to food.

Next – Paid 26% tax on its profits for 2012.
Next online offers everything from evening wear to electricals.

Of course we always recommend that you support your local shops before you hit the big High Street chains.

That last sentence is important. Local businesses without international operations will (almost by definition) not be using tax havens to cut their tax bills. They are being killed in markets by multinationals on a factor - tax - that has nothing to do with real productivity, and everything to do with transferring wealth away from other taxpayers elsewhere. (Read more arguments on this here.) Ethical Consumer again, on the alternatives to Amazon:

"Where do I buy my books?

Support your local bookshop if possible. Phone first to order titles.

In a reversal of Amazon’s famously unpopular suggestion to browse books first in a High Street bookshop and then buy them cheaper online, it's quite fun to browse for books first on Amazon and then buy them from a tax-paying local bookstore.

A good option is newsfromnowhere.org.uk a workers co-operative and radical bookshop.

hive.co.uk is another good alternative initiative combining online shopping with supporting local book stores.

Search on Amazon Marketplace and then buy the book you want directly from the seller by searching for it elsewhere online.

Other good options for second hand books are betterworldbooks.co.uk and Oxfam Books."

 More from TJN, and more detail on this important subject, in due course.

Google's tax tricks: new video commentary

To contact us Click HERE
This short video commentary nicely brings out the lunacy and artificiality at the heart of the corporate tax avoidance by Google, the third largest donor to President Obama's re-election efforts in 2012.


"Dutch Sandwich for them, sh*t sandwich for the taxpayer. And I am sick of it."

For a fuller explanation, read Jesse Drucker's original story, or, for more context, watch "We're Not Broke."

Swiss banker: "hello sir, are you declared or undeclared?"

To contact us Click HERE
We have already blogged on the logical contradictions at the heart of Switzerland's self-styled "white money" strategy, which is anything but. If the Swiss bankers genuinely want white money, they will fall in line with European efforts to promote widespread automatic information exchange. But instead they are doing their damnedest to sabotage it.

Now, from Bloomberg, it seems that even this feeble white-money strategy seems too stiff for some Swiss bankers.

"Swiss wealth managers are fighting against government proposals they say will scare off millionaire clients by forcing them to make declarations on the tax status of assets held in private bank accounts."

That story was on December 12th. Two days later, we see:

"Switzerland dropped a proposal that would have obliged the country’s banks to force wealthy clients to make declarations on the tax status of their assets. “There is no self-declaration obligation,” according to a statement today from the Swiss government, which will discuss revisions to its so-called white-money strategy on Dec. 19."

In the December 12th story a Swiss banker, Mr. Gregoire Bordier, produced a spectacular comment that reeks of the prejudices of a class of people who have for too many years seen themselves as above and beyond the rule of law.

"“This is not a question you ask your client: hello sir, are you declared or undeclared?” said Bordier, who is also managing partner at Bordier & Cie."

Just stop and think about the implications of what Bordier seems to be saying here. He is saying that these people are too civilised to participate in civilised society.

It is just too sordid, he seems to be saying, to ask someone whether they have been committing criminal acts; if our wealthy clients were actually required to obey the law, our superior class would have sunk down to the level of the Great Unwashed. Such a brazen act would undermine criminal client relationships. Heavens! This just isn't done in polite society.

To Bourdier's credit, he does then go on to highlight how feeble the self-declaration measure would be, referring to it as a 'petty diligence rule.'

In the same story we also have a very confused lawyer, Fabien Aepli of Eversheds in Geneva, with this statement:

“While banks shouldn’t abuse banking secrecy to help their clients avoid tax, that doesn’t mean they should become the agent of foreign fiscal authorities.”

Let's summarise Mr. Aelpi. "While banks shouldn't help clients engage in criminal tax evasion (as that is what we are talking here in the context of secrecy, not avoidance), that doesn't mean that banks shouldn't help their clients engage in criminal tax evasion." Swiss bankers, coherent to the last.

Memo to Swiss law makers: there is an easy way to adopt a genuine 'white money' strategy. You can do this 'self declaration' policy if it makes you feel better: it is at least a (smallish) step in the right direction. But why not make a proper start? Why not simply abolish banking secrecy? And get rid of  your spoiler 'Rubik" deals, adopt the transparency policy of automatic information exchange as your core ethic, engage with the EU and other regions and countries on providing the appropriate information they need -- and then see just how clever and 'competitive' your bankers really are.

And on that last subject of 'competitiveness', it is at least heartening to see a little gumption on the part of Swiss courts. Here is a little tale that may inflict further pain in Swiss banks' bloated rent-extraction machine, which can only be a good thing. More on that issue another day.

Rahm's real fight

To contact us Click HERE
As I write this, the Illinois Supreme Court has ruled that they will hear the case that will determine if Rahm Emanuel, the former Illinois Congressman and White House Chief of Staff, can run for Mayor of Chicago. The ruling also has halted all ballots being printed until they make a final determination.

The issue is whether Emanuel has truly established residency to run for the office. There is a law that says a person running for mayor in an Illinois municipality must be resident of that municipality for one year before the election. There is also another law that says a person voting in any Illinois election must establish residency for one year prior to the election, unless said person is called into service for the United States of America.

Emanuel has a home in Chicago, for he was the Congressman for Illinois' 5th District from 2003 to 2009. Ironically, he replaced Rod Blagojevich in Congress. In January of 2009, he became the Chief of Staff for President Obama. He resigned in October of 2010 to run for mayor of his hometown.

Emanuel contends that he meets the residency requirement to be a voter in the upcoming election, thus making him a qualified elector, and therefore a qualified candidate for mayor. He claims that his service as Chief of Staff qualifies for the service to the United States exemption. The Chicago Board of Elections agreed with that premise and qualified him as a candidate.

However, that ruling was challenged to the Illinois Appellate Court and that court overturned their ruling. Unfortunately, I agree with the Appellate Court and I believe the Illinois Supreme Court will also. The problem for Emanuel is that while he may qualify as a voter for the election, the law concerning the qualifications as a candidate are clear and distinct. The fact that he has not been a resident of the state for one year prior to the election, and that absence is documented, Rahm Emanuel is not qualified to run for Mayor of Chicago.

It is a shame because he was the leading candidate going into the February 22nd primary. He campaigned on a positive vision for the city and was not only well-funded, but well-organized also. The main beneficiary of Emanuel leaving the race will more likely be former U.S. Senator Carol Moseley Braun, who has also campaigned as a healer, not a divider.

If the Illinois Supreme Court rules otherwise it will be a surprise, but it is a tough fight that Emanuel has to engage in and in the long run, it will bring some clarity to Chicago politics, which would be a rare, but welcome, moment indeed.

My thoughts on Mississippi's Nov. Initiatives

To contact us Click HERE
As usual, while most Mississippi voters are focused on individuals seeking the various statewide, legislative and county offices, many may not be aware that there are three initiatives on the ballot as well that will impact their lives greatly. Below is my take on those initiatives and where I stand on them. I will start with Initiative #31: Should government be prohibited from taking private property by eminent domain and then transferring it to other persons? Initiative #31 would amend the Mississippi Constitution to prohibit state and local government from taking private property by eminent domain and then conveying it to other persons or private businesses for a period of 10 years after acquisition. Exceptions from the prohibition include drainage and levee facilities, roads, bridges, ports, airports, common carriers, and utilities. The prohibition would not apply in certain situations, including public nuisance, structures unfit for human habitation, or abandoned property. During my time in the Mississippi House of Representatives, this issue showed its importance as we were trying to figure out how to get Nissan to locate their new plant in Canton. We committed millions of dollars in infrastructure development which included the use of eminent domain to make that happen. Eminent domain, which is the attainment of private property for public use, in that regard was a positive because it was used for public projects but it was clear it was beneficial for a private economic development interest. This initiative will clarify in the Mississippi Constitution that eminent domain is only supposed to be used for public projects. It will prohibit eminent domain to be used, for example, to acquire land for the building of a strip mall, factory or an office building. The Farm Bureau has taken the lead in pushing this initiative because any expansion of eminent domain for private economic development would immediately threaten the largest group of landowners in the state, our farmers. I will vote YES on this initiative. Initiative #27: Should the Mississippi Constitution be amended to require a person to submit government issued photo identification in order to vote? Initiative #27 would amend the Mississippi Constitution to require voters to submit a government issued photo identification before being allowed to vote; provides that any voter lacking government issued photo identification may obtain photo identification without charge from the Mississippi Department of Public Safety; and exempts certain residents of state-licensed care facilities and religious objectors from being required to show photo identification in order to vote. One of the most emotional days during my tenure in the Legislature was when we had to take a vote on making Voter ID mandatory, so much so that I wrote a column about it in the Jackson Free Press. Every member spoke on the floor and expressed their feelings, either in support or opposition, and afterwards many of us became closer, despite competing political philosophies. Needless to say this is an emotional issue to members of the African-American community that remember poll taxes and questions like how many bubbles are there in a bar of soap. Voter ID seems like a practical, innocuous argument to preserve the integrity of the voting process. However, it has been used to suppress voter turnout for certain groups in other states. In Tennessee, a 96-year-old Black woman was denied the right to vote recently because she did not have a driver's license. In Florida, college students cannot use their college IDs, even if they attend state universities. The author of the initiative, Sen. Joey Fillingane (R-Lamar County), organized the initiative drive after killing the Voter ID bill passed by the House in the Senate. His argument was that there needed to be a "clean" Voter ID bill, without provisions that would have allowed early voting, same-day registration and restoring the suffrage of first-time felons once they have served out their sentence. It is questionable whether the US Department of Justice will approve a Constitutional Amendment that requires Voter ID for all voters, but it is very possible. It is the only initiative that has a cost attached to it. It is estimated that the initiative, if passed, could cost as much as $1.5 million from the Department of Public Safety budget. Obviously the proponents of the measure do not feel strongly enough to convince the state's 82 Circuit Clerks to provide photos on the voter registration cards they provide in their respective counties. I will vote NO on this initiative. Initiative #26: Should the term “person” be defined to include every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning, or the equivalent thereof? Initiative #26 would amend the Mississippi Constitution to define the word “person” or “persons”, as those terms are used in Article III of the state constitution, to include every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning, or the functional equivalent thereof. I am considered a pro-life politician. I was endorsed by Pro-Life Mississippi when I served in the House. I am opposed to abortion, an emergency medical procedure, being used as a form of birth/population control. I am a strong proponent of adoption and a former abstinence-only counselor. I voted for the House Bill that banned abortions in this state, but I was also the author of the amendment in that same bill that allowed exceptions for rape, incest and the health of the mother. As a Christian, I believe life begins at conception and that God has predestined our lives before our existence on this earth begins. However, I have also made the argument that the US Constitution and the Mississippi Constitution are not the 67th and 68th books of the Holy Bible. To redefine "person/persons" in Article III of the Mississippi Constitution would effectively ban abortions in this state, but how broad of a swath will this provision cut? Medical professionals are divided on whether the initiative would prevent in vitro fertilization and outlaw forms of conventional birth control. Would family planning activities be possibly outlawed? Would the exceptions of rape, incest and the health of the mother be considered? Here is another scenario that has not be broached: Say an immigrant couple from El Salvador comes to Mississippi without proper documentation. The wife becomes pregnant in Mississippi and then they are caught. At that point, the deportation process begins. If the personhood initiative is passed, does that fetus, which would be considered a person in the Mississippi Constitution have the right to stay, thus preventing the mother from being deported? If the Federal Government is successful in deporting the mother, can the child come back and petition for US Citizenship based on the notion it was conceived in Mississippi and was considered a person by that state's Constitution? This initiative has failed twice in Colorado, but will be introduced in four other states. The Mississippi initiative supporters' strategy is for this initiative to be challenged and struck down in the Federal Courts, moved up in the Federal docket to the Supreme Court of the United States, thus forcing them to re-visit the Roe v. Wade decision. I consider this an extreme action based on a constitutionally extreme political philosophy. I will vote NO on this initiative. Those are my positions. Research these initiatives for yourself and then cast your vote on November 8th.