With cancel culture and big tech censorship becoming increasingly prevalent every day, it’s more important than ever for groups like ours to quickly and aggressively fight and protect our inalienable right to free speech.

Earmarking Proposals are Misleading

Earlier today, an Amicus Brief was filed with the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) in support of the lawsuit challenging the validity of the legislature’s proposed Income Surtax Amendment. A more comprehensive accompanying study was also published. Authored by the Beacon Hill Institute (BHI) and sponsored by the Fiscal Alliance Foundation, the amicus focuses on the practical realities encountered when attempting to “earmark” funds from specific tax levies to specific spending. The proposed increase would bring the state’s income tax from 5% to 9%, representing an 80% increase, for earners over $1M. The surtax would include many small businesses and one-time transactions.

Earlier today, a group of Massachusetts voters, including Democratic and Republican legislators, business owners, and others, filed a complaint with the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC), challenging the Attorney General’s and Secretary of the Commonwealth’s failure to propose fair and accurate language regarding the proposed Graduated Income Tax Amendment slated to appear on the November 2022 Massachusetts ballot. Two Fiscal Alliance Foundation Board Members are plaintiffs in the suit. A full copy of the suit is available here.

On Monday, May 10 the New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA) filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) regarding the December 10 decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) to uphold Governor Charlie Baker’s pandemic orders based on the 1950s Cold War-era Civil Defense Act (CDA).

The Fiscal Alliance Foundation made the following statement today in response to the New Civil Liberties Alliance’s case that was decided at the state Supreme Judicial Court (SJC).

A 2nd supplemental notice has been filed in the case Desrosiers v. Baker, which is challenging the legal underpinnings on which Gov. Charlie Baker has based his pandemic related executive orders shutting down much of Massachusetts.