A case pending before the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has the potential to enhance the First Amendment rights of workers from being forced to subsidize union speech they may disagree with. The case is Alaska v. Alaska State Employees Association and several states have already filed amicus briefs in support of workers. Among those who joined an amicus brief are Idaho, Kansas, Alabama, and Texas, as well as others. Why is a case out of Alaska drawing so much attention from other states, and how could it impact you? The case stands for a cause the Mountain States Policy Center firmly believes in --- government transparency and freedom of choice as a public employee. It could have a nationwide impact for all public employees. In 2018, SCOTUS held that public employees forced to subsidize a union, even if they “choose not to join and strongly object to the positions the union takes in collective bargaining and related activities” is unconstitutional. Such an “arrangement violates the free speech rights of nonmembers by compelling them to subsidize private speech on matters of substantial public concern.” This decision from Janus could be strengthened by the Alaska State Employees case should SCOTUS accept and hear it. Alaska State Employees seeks to resolve if affirmative consent must first be required before the Alaska state government can legally withhold from public employee paychecks for union causes within the scope of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. There are currently two kinds of “fees” charged by public employee unions in Alaska: membership dues and agency fees, with agency fees being required for both union and non-union employees working in the public sector. SCOTUS addressed both of these types of fee categories in Janus, and determined it is unconstitutional to withhold union agency fees from public employees who do not agree with or have a desire to join a specific union. The dispute at the center of the Alaska State Employees case is whether the ruling in Janus extends to membership dues as well. The Alaska Attorney General argues that it does; the Alaska State Employee Association argues that it does not. The dispute arose as a result of Alaska Attorney General Treg Taylor implementing aggressive initiatives to inform employees of their workplace rights once he took office.  One of those initiatives includes requiring employee consent to union dues being withdrawn from their paychecks. Under Taylor’s guidelines, employees would have to provide “clear and compelling evidence” of consenting to union dues before they could be withheld from compensation. Paychecks could no longer support any union purposes without the employee intending their money to do so. The state of Alaska initiative intends all Alaskan workers to be informed of each withholding line on their paychecks. Several states (including Idaho) have filed amicus briefs in Alaska State Employees in support of AG Taylor’s initiative regarding union dues. In other words, these states are also asking SCOTUS to recognize public employees’ right to consent to charges for governmental union dues. SCOTUS’s ruling in Janus logically leads to a conclusion that public workers’ income cannot subsidize a private matter on issues of substantial public concern without voluntarily waiving their First Amendment right. To voluntarily waive a fundamental right demands individual rights have been thoroughly communicated and understood. The First Amendment protects both the freedom to speak as well as the freedom to refrain from speaking. The state of Alaska urges the Supreme Court to reaffirm Janus which equally supports employees who wish to support union causes and those who “strongly object to the positions the union takes” as the court stated in 2018. Mountain States Policy Center firmly agrees with those asking SCOTUS to fully clarify the First Amendment rights of workers to not be forced to provide financial support to union causes or membership without direct consent first. We’ll soon know if the U.S. Supreme Court agrees.

Based on the number of signatures submitted, several tax repeal proposals will likely be on the agenda this year in Washington state. A citizen group called “Let’s Go Washington” has submitted six ballot measures that appear to have enough signatures to put the proposals before the Washington state legislature for consideration. Among these proposals are efforts to repeal the state’s new capital gains income tax (I-2109), put in place a ban on state or local income taxes (I-2111), repeal the environmental cap and trade gas taxes (I-2117), and allow more Washingtonians to opt-out of the state’s long-term care tax (I-2124). Under Washington’s constitution, there are three possible options with these ballot measures submitted to the legislature: The legislature can vote to enact without change (this can’t be vetoed by the Governor); The legislature can do nothing in which case the proposal is placed on the November ballot; or The legislature can propose an alternative in which case the alternative and original proposal are both placed on the November ballot. Here is the official ballot summary for each of these tax repeal proposals: I-2109: “This measure would repeal an excise tax imposed on the sale or exchange of certain long-term capital assets by individuals who have annual capital gains of over $250,000.” Note: Washington is the only state that refers to a capital gains income tax as an ‘excise tax.' MSPC has joined a national amicus in a case before the U.S. Supreme Court concerning this tax. I-2111: “This measure would prohibit the state, counties, cities, and other local jurisdictions from imposing or collecting income taxes, defined as having the same meaning as ‘gross income’ in the Internal Revenue Code.” Note: Washington voters have rejected 10 straight efforts to impose an income tax. I-2117: “This measure would prohibit state agencies from imposing any type of carbon tax credit trading, including ‘cap and trade’ or ‘cap and tax’ programs, regardless of whether the resulting increased costs are imposed on fuel recipients or fuel suppliers. It would repeal sections of the 2021 Washington Climate Commitment Act as amended, including repealing the creation and modification of a ‘cap and invest’ program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by specific entities.” Note: According to the Washington Policy Center, "The average tax on CO2 in 2023 ended up at $54.74 per metric ton, which equates to about 43 cents per gallon of gasoline and 53 cents per gallon for diesel." I-2124: “This measure would amend state law establishing a state long term care insurance program to provide that employees and self-employed people must elect to keep coverage under RCW 50B.04, allow employees to opt-out of coverage under RCW 50B.04 at any time, and repeal a current law governing exemptions for employees who had purchased long term care insurance before November 1, 2021.” Note: Most Washington workers are currently required to pay 0.58% of their wages in taxes under the state’s requirement to have a long term care policy. Due to the current political makeup of the Washington state legislature, it is unlikely these tax relief proposals will be adopted by lawmakers meaning voters will likely have the final say at the November 2024 general election.

Idaho’s 2024 Legislative Session begins on January 8 and is expected to run through March 22 (current targeted completion date). Lawmakers will consider many important policies during this time. Mountain States Policy Center is ready to help policymakers advance policies to improve Idaho’s economic outlook and opportunities for citizens. Here are MSPC’s top recommendations for lawmakers to consider (in no particular order): Enhance public participation in the legislative process by requiring three-day notice for public hearings. Send voters a constitutional amendment to require a legislative supermajority vote (or voter approval) for tax increases. Adopt revenue growth triggers to authorize automatic tax rate reductions. Improve tax transparency with a tax transparency website, taxpayer receipt, Truth in Taxation property tax website, and gas tax transparency stickers. Increase accountability and transparency with a Public School Transparency Act. Stop the use of low-voter turnout special elections to propose local tax levies and bonds by moving votes to the November general election for maximum voter engagement. Expand options for students and families with enhanced education choice opportunities by expanding eligible services for Empowering Parents grants. End the unconstitutional use of Home Equity Theft. Move to a 30-day filing threshold for remote income tax liability. Oppose any breaching of the Snake River dams and efforts to reduce operational effectiveness. Require legislative oversight of federal broadband spending and do not treat federal suggestions as mandates. Avoid imposing a mileage tax. As for MSPC’s role during the session, there are certain things we will (and won't) do: We will stand for freedom, liberty and free markets through our research and recommendations; We won't pressure lawmakers or call people names; We will produce ideas and analysis that inform the debate - and let those ideas do the talking; We won't attend a public hearing unless invited by lawmakers to offer testimony; We will review various proposals and legislation, offering analysis; and We won't grade bills or any lawmaker. Bottom line - our focus for the 2024 Legislative Session is on the policy ideas, not the personalities.

MSPC President Chris Cargill details the organization's success in 2022 and looks forward to the new year.

It's an important day across the mountain states. Not only are legislative sessions opening in Idaho and Washington, but MSPC is launching a new education effort called "Education Choice Improves Outcomes." The interactive effort will aim to answer questions about education choice, dispel myths, inform citizens, gather feedback and raise awareness. ​ This is not about shutting down public schools. As a state and region, we need to do better to make sure parents and families have more choices, because when they have more choices, the outcomes for our children improve. Our recent polling has shown strong support for education choice options - when Idahoans know what it is. ​ What will our effort include? ​ · A seven-part video series explaining what education choice is, including tackling six common myths · A new section of website that arms citizens and lawmakers with critical data about education choice · A new, in-depth study detailing options for legislators interested in advancing education choice (to be released in Boise Thursday night) · An opportunity for families to share how they would benefit from education choice

The nation’s fastest-growing free market think tank – Mountain States Policy Center (MSPC) – added to its staff today with the hiring of Jason Mercier as Vice President & Director of Research. “Jason is recognized in the Northwest and nationally as one of the nation’s top budget and tax analysts,” said Chris Cargill, the President and CEO of Mountain States Policy Center. “His non-partisan approach to research and good public policy based on free markets will help advance our mission and improve lives in our region.” Mercier’s experience in the free market think tank world dates back two decades. He has worked for both the Washington Policy Center and the Freedom Foundation, and is a Fellow with the national Better Cities Project. He is also a member of the State Tax Advisory Board for the Tax Foundation. In 2008, Mercier worked with lawmakers in Washington state to create the state’s renowned budget transparency website www.fiscal.wa.gov. “Non-partisan policy based on facts and not emotion is just what the country needs right now and MSPC is well positioned to help advance the debate in a constructive and respectful way,” Mercier said. Mountain States Policy Center is a non-profit, non-partisan research center that provides free market solutions to successfully grow the region. It concentrates its work in Idaho, Eastern Washington, Montana and Wyoming – one of the first organizations of its kind to cover multiple states. “MSPC has demonstrated a commitment to engaging in the policy debate the right way and I’m ready to help build on the dedication to federalism and a regional focus,” Mercier added. He’ll start at MSPC on July 1st. MSPC’s mission is to empower those in the Mountain States to succeed through non-partisan, quality research that promotes free enterprise, individual liberty and limited government.

More than 400 of our closest friends joined us in Coeur d'Alene Friday for Mountain States Policy Center's first Spring Dinner. More than $150,000 was raised to fund free market research in our region. It's indeed rare for a new think tank to be able to host such a large and successful event in its first year - but I am not a bit surprised. The support we've received across the Mountain States has been tremendous. There is a yearning for conservative, free market policies and recommendations - without the name calling. Our guest speaker was Congressman Trey Gowdy, who gave an inspirational message on hope and public service. He has an impressive background in public service. He has served as a federal prosecutor, a district attorney and in the United States Congress. He is known for his blunt, no-nonsense questioning of witnesses. Why did Mountain States Policy Center select him to be our first keynote speaker? Because he has been steadfast in the desire for truth and accountability. In January of 2019, he returned to South Carolina to practice law, teach classes with his close friend Senator Tim Scott, and speak on legal issues he considers important to our country. We were also pleased to honor Idaho Controller Brandon Woolf, Montana Secretary of State Christi Jacobsen and Eastern Washington Cathy McMorris Rodgers with our Elevation Awards.

The nation’s fastest-growing free market think tank – Mountain States Policy Center (MSPC) – is delighted to announce that Boise State University grad and former Idaho legislative candidate Sebastian Griffin is joining the staff as the organization’s Marketing and Communications Coordinator. “Sebastian is an entrepreneur and a doer,” said Chris Cargill, the President and CEO of Mountain States Policy Center. “His experience and passion for free markets will be a key part of our success now and long into the future.” Griffin earned a BS in Government and Political Science from Boise State University. In 2022, he was a candidate for the Idaho legislature. Over the past five years, Griffin has served and worked on dozens of campaigns for state and local offices. In 2019, when he was just a senior in high school, Griffin helped craft Idaho Senate Bill 1060 – legislation that allows high schoolers flexibility in graduation if they meet certain state benchmarks. “As a 5th generation Idahoan who has lived in a number of states as well as abroad, I know free markets are the keystone to what makes Idaho, and the Northwest Region, one of the most desirable places to live, work, and play,”Griffin said. “I’m thrilled to be part of communicating that message and advancing MSPC’s mission.” Griffin also founded his own marketing and communications firm Griffin Marketing. He lives in Nampa, Idaho with his wife Macy and their newborn daughter. He’ll be based in the Treasure Valley and start for MSPC on June 1st. Mountain States Policy Center is a non-profit, non-partisan research center that provides free market solutions to successfully grow the region. It concentrates its work in Idaho, Eastern Washington, Montana and Wyoming – one of the first organizations of its kind to cover multiple states. MSPC’s mission is to empower those in the Mountain States to succeed through non-partisan, quality research that promotes free enterprise, individual liberty and limited government. You can reach Sebastian at sgriffin@mountainstatespolicy.org. MORE INFORMATION: · About Mountain States Policy Center · High-resolution photo of Sebastian Griffin

Mountain States Policy Center (MSPC) is proud to announce former White House Press Secretary, author and current Fox News Host Kayleigh McEnany will be the keynote speaker at our 2024 Spring Dinner in Coeur d’Alene Friday, April 12, 2024. The dinner will be held at the Coeur d’Alene Resort and will attract hundreds of citizens, business leaders and elected officials from across the state. “This will be an incredible treat for our friends and supporters,” MSPC President Chris Cargill said. “During the busy 2024 campaign, it will be important to hear about Kayleigh’s experience in D.C., the role of the media and her view on free market public policy going forward.” Before jumping into public service, Kayleigh worked as a political commentator at CNN. She graduated from Harvard Law School with a Juris Doctor and Georgetown University School of Foreign Services with a degree in international politics. She also studied politics and international relations at Oxford University. She is currently a Fox News Host and the author of three books. ​ Mountain States Policy Center is 501(c)3 non-profit, independent think tank. MSPC focuses its research on free market ideas and solutions to topics including education reform, budget and tax, health care, agriculture, environment, and transportation. In April 2023, MSPC hosted a sellout crowd to hear from former Congressman Trey Gowdy. This fall, MSPC welcomes world-renowned neurosurgeon and former HUD Secretary Dr. Ben Carson, along with Wall Street Journal columnist Kim Strassel, to our dinner in Boise October 6. ​ MSPC’s mission is to empower those in the Mountain States to succeed through non-partisan, quality research that promotes free enterprise, individual liberty and limited government.

Mountain States Policy Center – the region’s largest free market think tank – has announced three new additions to its Board of Directors: Aaron Klein, Elaine Damschen and Dave Denton. Klein, Damschen and Denton were elected unanimously by the MSPC Board at its December meeting and, based on the organization’s bylaws, will serve a four year term beginning January 1, 2024. “Aaron, Elaine and Dave provide our organization with an amazing amount of experience in business and policy,” explained Chris Cargill, MSPC’s President. “They will help us advance our mission of empowering citizens and putting Free Markets First.” The trio take the place of board members Ken Dey, Rebecca Funk and Oscar Evans, whose terms expired at the conclusion of the year. Per the organization’s bylaws, four of the 16 board seats expire each year. This ensures a healthy turnover in experience, leadership, and fresh ideas each year. “We are very grateful for Ken, Becky and Oscar – three fantastic individuals who helped us launch the organization from the very beginning,” Cargill said. MSPC's Board leadership is also changing, with Julie Shiflett becoming Chair, John S. Otter serving as Vice Chair, William Junkermier has been elected Treasurer, and Brittany Gautreau serving as Secretary. More information about MSPC’s new board members: Aaron Klein is the co-founder of Nitrogen, the growth platform for wealth management firms, which started life as Riskalyze in 2011. As its first CEO, he led the company through 42 consecutive quarters of growth, scaling to serve tens of thousands of financial advisors, and twice being named one of the world’s 10 most innovative companies in finance by Fast Company Magazine. He passed the baton to his successor in 2023 and continues to serve on the firm’s Board of Directors. Aaron is married to Cacey Klein, and they are parents to an amazing Korean-Ethiopian-American family that consists of Spencer, Emma and Teddy. Together, they cofounded Hope Takes Root, an initiative to use capitalism to change the future for orphans and at-risk kids in Ethiopia. They reside in Eagle, Idaho, and absolutely love it. Elaine Damschen is a Boise State University grad and the co-founder & President of Mainstream Electric Heating Cooling & Plumbing. In 2018, 2019, and 2021, Mainstream was named to the prestigious Inc. 5000 List which highlights the fastest-growing privately held small businesses in the United States. Having over two decades of professional experiences as a successful entrepreneur, Elaine has been recognized with a Lifetime Achievement Awardee in 2023. Damschen was named the “Woman of the Year” by the Spokesman Review and the Idaho Business Review. Damschen is a former board member of Kids Helping Kids Fix Broken Hearts, a former board member of Nexstar Network, and the Better Business Bureaus of the Great West and Pacific. Elaine and her husband, Todd enjoy spending time with her three children Hunter, Rhett, and Emily, as well as their significant others and grandson. Dave Denton retired from a successful career in the oil and natural gas industry, working for British Petroleum. He was involved in major projects including a $40 million investment in Alaska, as well as a $16 billion international gas project in the Middle East. Dave and his wife Susan live in Hayden, Idaho and are involved in many different local organizations. They try to travel back to Alaska each summer to see friends and fish for salmon.

With the last Christmas presents opened, many of us will now turn our attention to undecorating and focusing on our goals for the New Year. While MSPC will be publishing our priorities for the 2024 Legislative Session next week, it is important first to reflect on and appreciate all that has happened in 2023 before we turn the page. Here are some of our favorite memories from this year: Idaho and Montana continued to prioritize tax relief with income tax reductions and property tax rebates. We had nearly 1,000 in combined attendance at our inaugural dinners in Coeur d'Alene and Boise. Former Congressman Trey Gowdy gave an inspirational message on hope and public service at our Spring Coeur d'Alene dinner. Idaho Senator Jim Risch also gave the crowd a congressional update. We were also pleased to honor Idaho Controller Brandon Woolf, Montana Secretary of State Christi Jacobsen, and Eastern Washington Congresswoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers with our Elevation Awards at that event. Those who attended our Fall Boise dinner were treated to speeches by the 17th U.S. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Dr. Ben Carson and the Wall Street Journal’s Kim Strassel. Idaho Governor Brad Little helped present former Governor Butch Otter with MSPC’s Elevation Award in Boise. MSPC teamed up with U.S. Senator Jim Risch to write a joint op-ed on the vital economic and environmental importance of the Snake River dams. Montana Governor Gianforte sent MSPC a handwritten thank-you note after our meeting this summer. Governor Gianforte wrote: “Thank you for taking the time to visit in Helena to discuss your good work. We welcome your input as we prepare for the 2025 legislative session.” MSPC President and CEO Chris Cargill was published coast-to-coast in more than 40 newspapers - from the Sacramento Bee to the Idaho Statesman to the Fort Worth Star-Telegram to the Miami Herald. His column was about the proposed merger between Albertsons & Kroger and how it could allow more competition with the likes of grocery giants including Walmart, Amazon, and Costco. Several Idaho lawmakers expressed interest in MSPC’s property tax reform recommendation for Truth in Taxation. We hope to see this policy acted on in 2024. We published an interview with Washington Secretary of State Steve Hobbs on the differences between an open primary (which he supports) and ranked choice voting (which he opposes). The Daily Montanan highlighted our blog post on the Montana legislative process in its weekly update saying: “The Mountain States Policy Center has presented a great resource for folks wanting to know how and why the Montana state government works like it does. Here's a handy-link to Montana's legislative process and how residents can get involved in government.” None of this would have been possible without your support. We’re excited for what’s to come in 2024 but we wanted to thank you first for a successful 2023!

Today's high school and college students are tomorrow's leaders. That's why Mountain States Policy Center's Board of Directors is proud to launch the Sawtooth Leadership Academy. ​ This yearly, limited enrollment and no-cost program is dedicated to broadening the perspectives of emerging young minds in the principles of free markets, civics and civility. Ten students are selected each year to participate in six courses, both in-person and virtually. Each participant will complete an approved study to be published by Mountain States Policy Center and featured at MSPC's gala dinner events. ​ At the end of the program, based on the students' participation and work product, MSPC's Board of Directors will select at least one participant to receive a $5,000 scholarship. To read more about program requirements, deadlines and to apply, visit the Sawtooth Leadership Academy page here. Applications will be accepted until January 15th.

The U.S. Census Bureau recently released the latest population estimates showing that Idaho’s population is continuing to surge. In fact, Idaho ranked in the top five states for percentage of population growth. Based on the total net population increase, Idaho could see its congressional delegation grow in 2030. This also means Idaho could gain one vote in the Electoral College. Here is a look at the population changes and potential impact on state congressional delegations. The Tax Foundation noted a possible tax angle for the population changes: “Every year, millions of Americans pack up and move from one state to another, providing unique insights into what people value when deciding where to live, work, and raise a family. For many years, policymakers, journalists, and taxpayers have debated the role state tax policy plays in individuals’ and businesses’ location decisions. Annual data about who is moving—and where—provide clues about the factors contributing to these moves. Taxes are one such factor. The latest IRS and Census data show that people and businesses favor states with low and structurally sound tax systems, which can impact the state’s economic growth and governmental coffers.” Policies matter and citizens are voting with their feet. A good lesson for policymakers to keep in mind as legislative sessions kick off in January.

If there’s one thing Americans can still agree on, it’s that tax policy is one of the most consequential decisions our government makes that impacts our economy and family budgets. This is true of not only legislatively imposed tax increases but also of those tax levies put before voters. Unfortunately, many elections suffer from low voter turnout, leaving these monumental tax decisions in the hands of a relatively small number of citizens. This is especially true for ‘special elections’ that are held throughout the year separately from the November general election when few voters are paying attention. To counter the few from imposing a long-term tax obligation on the community without broad consensus, several states require supermajority votes for certain types of tax increases. There are many good reasons to require a supermajority, even with voter approval, for bonds such as those for schools. Unlike normal levies, these bond obligations can extend for many years and the taxes can’t be repealed or reduced until that obligation is met. Most other tax levies can be changed or repealed at any time. This prevents tying the hands of future policymakers so they can respond to changing economic conditions. The main exception to this flexibility, however, is for taxes pledged to bonds (long-term contractual obligations). Realizing the different nature of taxes for bonds versus normal operating expenses and wanting to prevent a small number of voters from imposing this type of long-term tax burden on a community, many constitutions across the country require these bond votes to secure a broad consensus. Although several states require a 3/5 vote for school bonds (including neighboring Washington), Idaho is one of the few in the country with an exceptionally high requirement to secure a 2/3 vote of the people. Some lawmakers in Idaho are discussing whether Idaho’s school bond requirement should be changed. As reported by the Idaho Statesman: “[Rep.] Furniss said in an interview that lawmakers are discussing ways to reduce the vote threshold in elections when turnout is high. That way, bond measures wouldn’t fail with 65% support in high-turnout years — what would be a blowout election in any other race.” Moving to a 3/5 vote requirement for school bonds, IF the election is required to be held at the November general for maximum voter turnout and involvement, is a discussion worth having. What shouldn’t happen is allowing ‘special elections’ with low voter turnout to increase the long-term tax obligation of a community. One possible idea would be to give school districts a choice. They could use a special election and need to meet a 2/3 vote, or they could place the bond tax levy on the November general election and need to secure a 3/5 vote. It is false to say this will only make tax increases easier. In fact, in a higher turnout election, you’ll have to convince more voters that the tax increase is warranted. The goal is to allow the full voice of the community to be heard by making these tax decisions at the elections with the highest voter turnout. As for normal operating levies that only need to meet a majority threshold, those too should be moved to the November general election. There is never a good argument to use a low-turnout election to ask the community to increase taxes on families and businesses. While we have been primarily talking about tax levies sent to voters for approval, since this policy change for bonds would require a constitutional amendment, we should also ask lawmakers to make legislatively imposed taxes reach a broad consensus. This is why Mountain States Policy Center is encouraging Idaho lawmakers to send voters a constitutional amendment that would require a legislative supermajority vote or voter approval for all tax increases. As currently occurs in Oregon and Colorado, this type of policy could also be coupled with automatic tax rebate triggers based on revenue growth to help avoid the temptation of overheating a state budget and increasing the pressure for tax increases. Whether requiring voter approval for all tax increases like in Colorado or needing a 2/3 legislative threshold as occurs in Florida, increasing the tax burden imposed on families and businesses should first require a broad consensus and always be the last resort when budgeting. Long-term tax obligations should never be easy to impose, but Idaho’s current 2/3 vote requirement for school bonds, even with voter approval, is an exceedingly high threshold that should be reconsidered. By moving all tax levies to the November general election while still requiring a 3/5 vote for bonds, policymakers can encourage a robust tax discussion in the community to occur and secure a broad consensus before a long-term tax obligation is imposed.

As a result of the COVID-19 lockdowns, remote work has been surging. According to the United States Census Bureau, the number and percent of home-based workers more than tripled between 2019 and 2021, from 5.7% (roughly 9 million workers) to 17.9% (about 28 million workers). Consequently, this trend towards remote work needs the proper policy actions by policymakers to allow these employees to both thrive in their positions and incentivize them to work in the state. As remote-based companies grow, they need to have the assurance that the states their employees reside in are well suited for their sector of work. There is a great administrative advantage for employers to have the option to choose from job candidates all around the country without experiencing hesitations around state’s tax policies. One of the areas of policy involved is an income tax obligation or withholding threshold. This is the limit that employees must exceed in a state before they are either liable to pay the state income tax, or employers are required to withhold income taxes on the employees’ behalf. Around the country, states have been looking at ways to increase this threshold to make their state attractive for remote and nonresident employees to work out of. Idaho should follow suit. As it stands in Idaho, a nonresident employee must make $1,000 while in Idaho, to have their employer withhold their income tax for the state. While this policy is mainly associated with remote workers, it also affects those who engage in frequent business travel, and those who desire to work in a hybrid model in a different state. As Charlie Kearns from the National Conference of State Legislators explains: “Several states adopt bright-line withholding thresholds, although they vary by state. While the states’ nonresident withholding thresholds predominantly apply to ordinary business travel, the thresholds also impact taxation of a remote worker’s wages when an employer permits employees to work from anywhere, such as during an out-of-state vacation or at a relative’s home for a short, temporary period (for example, two weeks)” Manish Bhatt, Senior Policy Analyst at Tax Foundation, notes: “By now, we are accustomed to the increased mobility of the workforce. Unfortunately, many state tax codes have not caught up. In fact, some states impose tax withholding and filing obligations on nonresident workers that spend as little as one day in the state. Further, surprisingly few states have reciprocity agreements which help protect residents from double taxation for time spent elsewhere. Raising the thresholds for tax withholding and filing and considering reciprocity agreements between states are commonsense reform options.” One of the biggest hurdles in this transition towards remote-based working has been the economic policies surrounding income tax at the state level. As the National Taxpayers Union Foundation explains: “Tax policies play a major factor in residency decisions, and remote work will likely accelerate tax migration. States can either resist the trend and bleed taxpayers or embrace it and work to become competitive.” Several states are acting to reform their nonresident income tax thresholds. In May of 2023, Montana passed a 30-day threshold for income tax liability. HB  447 states that: “Compensation that is received by a nonresident for employment duties performed in this state, is excluded from Montana source income if: The nonresident is present in this state to perform employment duties for not more than 30 days during the tax year in which the compensation is received, where presence in this state for any part of a day constitutes presence.” The National Taxpayers Union Foundation (NTUF) has developed the ROAM Index to rank how every state treats remote workers through its tax and regulatory policies. The index considers five factors while calculating its score. They consider a filing threshold which is the period a taxpayer must work in a state before the taxpayer must file an income tax return in that respective state. The NTUF has the highest value for states that require taxpayers to file in-state only after they work more than 30 days in that state, not calculating equivalent days worked based on a wage threshold. Idaho currently holds a ROAM score of 10.66 out of 35 and is ranked 24th in the country. Asked about Idaho moving to a 30-day filing threshold, NTUF told MSPC: "By instituting 30-day filing and withholding thresholds, Idaho has an opportunity to become the 2nd-highest scoring state on the ROAM Index among states with an individual income tax, right ahead of Montana. Idaho has a chance to be a big winner in the remote work revolution, and it shouldn't let its tax code be an impediment.” While the issue of income tax relating to nonresident workers is treated differently throughout the country, Idaho should consider moving to a 30-day income tax obligation threshold. The state needs to both encourage remote and nonresident workers to operate in Idaho and ensure that employees aren’t taking advantage of a tax loophole. A 30-day threshold would accomplish both. A wage threshold proves to be very complicated in the case of an employer with employees in multiple states. The employer must take all the specific wage thresholds into consideration while making hires and sending employees to other states for meetings, conferences, and other forms of business engagement. A wage threshold also disincentives entrepreneurs from organizing events like business conferences. If the organizers know they will be obligated to pay the income tax within a given state if they exceed a certain compensation level, they will simply relocate to a state where they wouldn’t be penalized in. The 30-day mark provides adequate time for nonresidents to collaborate with residents while participating in the local economy. The current threshold standard of $1,000 earned in Idaho is lacking compared to the 30-day-specific direction that states like Montana are following.

In today's rapidly evolving economic landscape, access to high-speed internet is critical for small businesses and education opportunities. As part of the Infrastructure Investment Bill and American Jobs Act (IIJA), passed in 2021, states are being provided billions of dollars by the federal government to help expand broadband. For example, Idaho will have a big opportunity to expand broadband the right way with $583 million in federal funding. Neighboring states are also receiving substantial federal broadband funding with Washington state being allocated $1.2 billion, Montana $629 million, and Wyoming $348 million. As policymakers utilize these federal funds, they should focus on best practices to ensure they are taking a free-market approach that expands broadband to the greatest number of people in the most efficient way possible. What is broadband specifically and how is it being used/implemented today? Broadband expansion refers to efforts aimed at increasing the availability and accessibility of high-speed broadband internet services in areas where they are currently limited or unavailable. It involves extending the reach of broadband infrastructure to reach more communities, homes, and businesses. Broadband expansion is critical for several reasons: Digital accessibility: It ensures more people have access to the internet, bridging the digital divide. Without broadband access, individuals and communities can be left behind in terms of education, employment, healthcare, and civic engagement. Economic development: Broadband expansion is seen as a driver of economic growth. It enables businesses to reach broader markets, facilitates remote work, and attracts investments in underserved regions. Education: Access to broadband is crucial for remote learning and education choice options, especially living in a post-COVID-19 world. According to the Federal Communications Commission, "Nearly 17 million school children lack internet access at home.” Healthcare: Telehealth and remote healthcare services rely on broadband access. Expanding broadband can improve healthcare access, especially in rural and remote areas. Government services: Many government services and information are now provided online. Broadband expansion ensures citizens can access government services efficiently. To help ensure a successful broadband expansion implementation, we encourage policymakers to follow these five steps (here is our full study on this topic). Step one: Understand your market. Broadband, with its high-speed internet capabilities, has become an indispensable tool, weaving its way into the very fabric of our daily lives and operations. Engaging industry experts can provide invaluable insights into the latest advancements, challenges, and the promising future of broadband. Step two: Find the right projects. State and local governments often rely on comprehensive broadband mapping. These maps, developed in collaboration with the FCC or independent organizations, provide detailed insights into areas lacking adequate broadband access. For instance, Idaho's Broadband Task Force has been instrumental in identifying underserved regions, guiding the state's efforts in bridging the digital divide. Step three: Maximize investments. Traditional fiber optic networks, while effective, have been found to not always be the most cost-efficient solution for remote areas. Exploring alternative technologies, such as fixed wireless, satellite internet, or low-power wide-area networks, can offer more economical solutions for challenging terrains or low-density regions. Companies like SpaceX's Starlink are aiming to provide broadband access via low-Earth orbit satellites. This could be a game-changer for remote and underserved areas. Step four: Don’t treat federal suggestions as mandatory. While federal guidelines are designed to ensure a uniform approach to broadband expansion, local legislators and implementers need to know they have the strategic autonomy to adapt these suggestions to the community's specific needs. A one-size-fits-all policy may not suit the diverse landscapes and demographic nuances of different regions. It is important to remember that federal guidance should serve as a starting point for collaboration rather than a checklist for compliance. For example, in response to a question about requiring a union workforce to expand broadband, Idaho told the federal government: “The IOB has opted not to require applicants to have a unionized workforce.” Step five: Limit government overreach. Excessive and cumbersome regulations can act as deterrents, hindering private initiative and inflating project costs. By simplifying regulatory frameworks and ensuring transparent, competitive bidding processes, local governments can pave the way for efficient and equitable broadband projects. Such measures not only make it more attractive for private companies to participate but also guard against potential government favoritism, ensuring a level playing field. Collaborations with utility companies to utilize existing poles, conduits, or even public buildings can significantly reduce project costs. Governments should not attempt to create their own broadband utilities or institute price caps. Policymakers now have a generational opportunity to expand high-speed internet in their states with federal broadband funds to help improve digital accessibility, economic development, education opportunities, healthcare access, and government services. By focusing on these five steps: 1) understand the market, 2) pick the right projects, 3) maximize investments, 4) don’t treat federal suggestions as mandatory and, 5) limit government overreach, government officials will be able to ensure a successful and cost-effective broadband expansion implementation in their states.

Note: Here are excerpts from a MSPC article that ran in National Review on December 17 While most of us look forward to the promise that a new year brings, for more than 27 million American small businesses, the clock will begin ticking for a new reporting requirement to a federal agency that most of us have never heard of. Arising from the Corporate Transparency Act, the Beneficial Ownership Information Reporting Rule, or BOI Reporting Rule, creates a federal obligation for most entities created or registered to do business in the U.S. to disclose personal information about their beneficial owners, senior officers, and other control persons to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), unless exempt. FinCEN is a bureau of the U.S. Department of the Treasury and most known for its administration of the Bank Secrecy Act to combat money laundering and terrorism financing. The BOI Reporting Rule is a disquieting expansion of the agency’s authority and will doubtless require a significant expansion of its budget and full-time payroll. According to FinCEN, the rule is intended to prevent “criminals, Russian oligarchs, and other bad actors” from laundering money in the U.S., but the practical effect is to punish millions of small businesses with yet another reporting requirement and layer of regulatory record-keeping with steep fines and penalties for failure to comply. Beginning January 1, businesses will have one year to file their initial report with FinCEN or face civil penalties of up to $500 per day and criminal penalties of up to $10,000 and two years of imprisonment. If you want to know whether your business is required to report, you will need to review the agency’s “Small Entity Compliance Guide,” which helpfully explains FinCEN’s goal to “reduce the burden on small businesses by providing comprehensive guidance and communicating information about the reporting requirements in plain language.” It takes 57 pages to do that, including various Yes/No flow charts to help a business determine whether it is required to report and which officers and individuals must be identified. In most cases, unless the business falls under one of 23 enumerated exemptions, it will be required to report. If a change occurs as defined by the rule, businesses will have 30 days to report them . . . American small businesses are subject to layer upon layer of government authority and taxation. As the decades fly by, it becomes increasingly costly and difficult for businesses to comply. As with most new government rules, the good intentions are always touted by well-meaning sponsors. Who doesn’t want to stop Russian oligarchs and drug lords from laundering money in the U.S.? But America’s 27 million small-business owners are not the problem, and it is not the federal government’s role to hijack the regulation of 100 percent of these businesses in order to identify a tiny minority of potentially problematic ones. You can read MSPC's entire National Review article online here: Washington D.C. to Ring In the New Year by Sticking It to Small Business

There are many good reasons to require a supermajority vote, even with voter approval, for school bonds. Unlike normal levies, these bond obligations can extend for many years and the taxes can’t be repealed until that obligation is met. Wanting to prevent a small number of voters from imposing a long-term tax burden on a community, many state constitutions across the country require bond votes to secure a broad consensus. While several states require a 3/5 vote for school bonds, Idaho is one of the few in the country that mandates a 2/3 vote of the people. Several lawmakers in Idaho are discussing whether Idaho’s school bond requirement should be changed. As reported by the Idaho Statesman: “Furniss said in an interview that lawmakers are discussing ways to reduce the vote threshold in elections when turnout is high. That way, bond measures wouldn’t fail with 65% support in high-turnout years — what would be a blowout election in any other race.” Moving to a 3/5 vote requirement for school bonds, IF the election is required to be held at the November general for maximum voter turnout and involvement, is a discussion worth having. What shouldn’t happen is allowing “special elections” with low voter turnout to increase the long-term tax obligation of a community. One possible idea would be to give school districts a choice: A special election with a 2/3 vote or placing the bond tax levy on the November general election and requiring a 3/5 vote. The goal should be the same, allowing the full voice of the community to be heard by making these tax decisions at the elections with the highest voter turnout. To that point, ultimately all local tax levies should be moved to the November general election. As for legislatively imposed taxes, those too should require a supermajority vote or voter approval. Additional Information Protect taxpayers by putting supermajority for tax increase requirements in state constitution

The importance of a safe and open internet cannot be overstated in an era where the digital landscape is constantly evolving. Mountain States Policy Center is proud to announce its commitment to supporting this cause, aligning with the James Madison Institute's insightful comments filed today on the Federal Communications Commission's proposed Safeguarding and Securing the Open Internet Order (SSOIO). Our focus is on advocating for a free and open internet that fosters innovation, competition, and economic growth. James Madison Institute's comprehensive analysis of the SSOIO notes the importance of standing strong against unnecessary regulations that may jeopardize the thriving internet ecosystem we currently enjoy. Some will ask why it matters to be involved in such a topic. Here is why: Embracing free market practices encourages healthy competition among internet service providers (ISPs), fostering innovation and driving economic growth. A competitive marketplace stimulates investment, expanding high-speed internet infrastructure across the Mountain States region. By advocating for a free and open internet, we support an environment where ISPs can provide affordable and high-quality internet services to residents of Idaho, Washington, Montana, and Wyoming. Increased competition often leads to lower prices and improved service, ensuring that a broader population can access the benefits of a connected world. Maintaining a Title I classification for ISPs ensures a light-touch regulatory environment, incentivizing private investment in broadband networks. This investment is crucial for reaching remote and less profitable areas, helping bridge the digital divide across our vast and diverse region. Mountain States Policy Center echoes concerns about the potential legal uncertainties associated with the SSOIO, emphasizing the need for unambiguous regulatory frameworks. Legal clarity is vital for providing a stable environment that encourages investment, innovation, and sustained economic development. By supporting the James Madison Institute's position, we emphasize the FCC's existing powers to address national security concerns without violating Title II regulations. This approach ensures that the federal government has the necessary tools to protect America’s telecommunications networks from foreign adversaries. As we've previously written and discussed, "Meantime, we now have the data to prove that the internet speed was improving before 2015 (pre-net neutrality), and continues to increase in this post-net neutrality world." Average broadband speeds in the United States have increased dramatically over the past six years. Average mobile internet speeds are up more than 300%. As stated in an Op-Ed by the James Madison Institute: "As speeds increased, the average price of broadband fell, providing more Americans access to the benefits of connectivity. Studies of broadband pricing have shown between 2021 and 2022, the overall cost of broadband declined by almost 15%. Notably, these price declines occurred while the U.S. economy suffered record inflation, making affording everyday essentials a problem for American households. With lower prices, more Americans were able to receive what used to be a luxury and enjoy the benefits of connectivity." By taking a firm stance in support of a safe and open internet, we look forward to working collaboratively with the FCC and other stakeholders to shape policies that reflect the unique needs and opportunities of the Mountain States region. By upholding the principles of limited government, free markets, and digital innovation, we aim to secure a vibrant and accessible internet for the benefit of all residents of our region and surrounding states.

Mountain States Policy Center (MSPC) is teaming up with public policy experts from across the country to ask the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) to prevent the national free-speech marketplace from being balkanized into 50+ regimes with varying and conflicting government regulation of online speech. The cases are NetChoice v. Paxton and Moody v. NetChoice. The Center for Growth and Opportunity explains the importance of the case and why it took the lead in filing the amicus: “Crucial free speech and platform regulation issues are at stake. As we argued in our Gonzalez v. Google brief, if the Court decides against NetChoice, marginalized, conservative voices will be diminished and U.S. economic growth slowed. If the Court upholds these laws, then the United States’s national free-speech marketplace will be balkanized into 50+ regimes with varying and conflicting government regulation of online speech. In some jurisdictions, social media sites could be forced to host unsavory speech and opinions coarsening the social media experience for the majority of users. In other jurisdictions, state and local governments could be emboldened to further manipulate social media platform content to promote ideological allies and suppress opponents’ ideas. These laws could further entrench the largest social media companies and limit smaller competitors. Big companies are the only ones that would have the resources to comply with dozens of state laws. These cases have significant implications for how states can regulate major social media platforms, directly affecting digital communication and expression.” The amicus brief notes: “Amici curiae are The Center for Growth and Opportunity, Freedom Foundation of Minnesota, Illinois Policy Institute, Independence Institute, James Madison Institute, Libertas Institute, Mountain States Policy Center, Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs, Pelican Institute for Public Policy, R Street Institute, Rio Grande Foundation, and The John Locke Foundation. Amici are educational and research organizations committed to the faithful interpretation of the Constitution, the rule of law, market economics, individual rights, and limited government. They write and train the public on topics including economic growth, innovation, and free speech. In the states where they operate, these organizations serve as some of the few, and at times the only, organized advocates of free-market policies and regulatory restraint. Though well-intentioned, the state laws here flout these principles and will turn the internet into what has aptly been called a ‘splinternet’ of 50 state speech codes—balkanizing the country, confusing users, overburdening websites, and impoverishing public debate. Amici file this brief to explain why such state laws are both unconstitutional and unneeded.” Although SCOTUS has yet to schedule oral arguments, the expectation is for the court to issue a ruling by the end of June 2024.