Most voters and many economists agree that endless deficit spending is unsustainable. Yet politicians face little consequence for approving it. This bill creates direct financial accountability for federal representatives while still allowing the people's representatives an override mechanism.

1. Select your state on the map above
2. Find your state legislators and email/call them
3. Connect with existing advocates in your state (also shown on map)
4. Subscribe to updates below to stay informed

Yes. Federal elected officials — U.S. Senators and House members — have strong constitutional protection under the Speech or Debate Clause. This clause prevents the government from bringing criminal charges (such as felony prosecution or prison time) against them for anything they say or how they vote while doing their official legislative work in Congress.However, the proposed Michigan tax bill is not a criminal punishment at all—it’s simply a civil state tax (a surcharge on their Michigan income), so the Speech or Debate Clause’s criminal-protection rule doesn’t apply here. States already have broad authority to tax their own citizens (including FEOs) and to classify citizens into groups for differential taxation. This bill simply creates a new taxpayer class for FEOs, split based on their votes for deficit spending—well within established state taxing powers.
We asked Rep. Steve Carra's office of Michigan this question. What follows is their response,
"Please note that governmental immunity protects governments (federal, state, and local) and their officials from lawsuits, or limits the extent to which they can be sued. This proposed legislation is implementing a tax on certain federal officials in certain circumstances, it isn't allowing those officials to be sued for certain actions, so that legal doctrine isn't necessarily relevant. That being said, there is an intergovernmental tax immunity doctrine. In short, the principle of intergovermnental tax immunity is that states and national government would not impose burdens upon each other's governmental functions and each level of government would treat the other fairly. The federal public salary tax act waives the immunity of federal employees from state taxation provided the tax doesn't discriminate against the officer or employee because of the source of pay or compensation. So states are allowed to tax federal employees as long as they are treated fairly. The question which would be up to a court to decide, if challenged, is does the state imposing a tax on certain federal employees as a result of how they vote on certain subjects create an undue interference on those employees and impair the federal government's sovereignty."

Yes — the language is designed to be modular. Once one or two states demonstrate serious movement, it becomes much easier to introduce nearly identical bills elsewhere. Early adopter states can create powerful momentum.