A tax on digital advertising will hurt Rhode Island small businesses and consumers
As a former South Dakota State senator, past president of the National Conference of State Legislators, and a Certified Public Accountant, I've seen firsthand how tax policies can either help or hurt a state's economy. The digital advertising tax that is being pushed in Rhode Island Gov. Dan McKee's proposed fiscal 2026 budget is a clear case of the latter — a misguided policy that threatens to harm every small business and consumer in the Ocean State.
Advertising isn't just about flashy billboards or catchy jingles; it's a cornerstone of economic activity. An independent study commissioned by the Association of National Advertisers shows that advertising expenditures generate a whopping $22.4 billion in economic activity in Rhode Island alone, supporting over 106,000 jobs. That's 15.5% of all jobs in the state.
Taxing digital ads opened Maryland up to litigation. McKee wants Rhode Island to do it anyway.
When you tax digital advertising, you're not just targeting faceless tech giants, you're hitting the local coffee shop trying to reach new customers, the family-run bookstore promoting a weekend sale, and the startup striving to make its mark. You might think you're hitting the big guy but you're really just stepping on the little guy.
As I noted in my testimony in front of the Senate Finance Committee, because of this tax, small businesses would face tough choices. That is not the fate that legislators should be rooting for when it comes to Rhode Island's small business community. Proponents of this tax argue it's aimed at billion-dollar corporations, but history tells a different story. In France, a similar digital advertising tax ended up passing 55% percent of its burden onto consumers, according to a Deloitte study.
Beyond the straight economic impact, this tax is a double whammy for businesses. Rhode Island companies already pay income tax, now they'd be taxed again just for advertising their products and services. This kind of double taxation doesn't just strain businesses —- it discourages them from growing, investing, and hiring. For a state in which business owners already face significant headwinds, this tax could be the final straw for many entrepreneurs.
You might think you're hitting the big guy but you're really just stepping on the little guy.
Let's not forget the legal minefield this tax creates. Maryland's attempt to implement a similar tax has been tied up in costly legal battles, draining taxpayer dollars with no end in sight. The proposed tax in Rhode Island could face similar challenges, potentially violating the First Amendment, the Dormant Commerce Clause, and federal laws like the Internet Tax Freedom Act. If the courts strike it down, Rhode Island could be on the hook to refund every cent collected, plus interest. With an already challenging fiscal situation on the horizon, that's a gamble the state can't afford to take.
Digital advertising has been a game-changer for small businesses, leveling the playing field and allowing them to reach audiences far beyond their local communities. Over the past decade, it's fueled growth and innovation, helping more than 100,000 small businesses in Rhode Island thrive. Taxing this critical tool doesn't just stifle growth —- it sends a message that Rhode Island isn't open for business.
A tax on digital advertising isn't just bad policy, it's a step backward.
Rhode Island lawmakers have a choice: they can pursue short-sighted revenue grabs that hurt the very people they're supposed to serve, or they can focus on fostering a business-friendly environment that encourages growth, innovation, and prosperity.
I urge lawmakers to reject this harmful tax and instead focus on policies that build a stronger, more competitive state.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Politico
3 hours ago
- Politico
Are Christian nationalists targeting women's right to vote?
Happy Friday. Thanks for keeping up with us! As always, reach out with thoughts, questions, offerings: ecordover@ and klong@ This week we examine the theocratic, patriarchal movement making waves in Washington. Last week, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth reposted a CNN interview of his pastor, Christian nationalist Doug Wilson, writing 'All of Christ for All of Life.' In the video, church members discussed why they believe women shouldn't be allowed to vote — a tenet of Wilson's main church, Christ Church in Moscow, Idaho. In the CNN segment, Wilson, who founded a network of churches in the late 1990s called the Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches, or CREC, said 'women are the kind of people that people come out of.' He has written several books on marriage, masculinity and childrearing, along with blog posts with titles like 'The Lost Virtues of Sexism.' He has referred to various women as 'small-breasted biddies,' 'lumberjack dykes' and 'cunts' and extolled the 'benefits' of slavery. The pastor's views are coming under scrutiny as he gains influence within the Republican Party. Last year, he declared that his church was seeking to make inroads with 'numerous evangelicals who will be present both in and around the Trump administration.' Since then, he's appeared at congressional events, cheering when Hegseth — one of his congregants in Tennessee — was confirmed. Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought also has ties to the church. Christian nationalism is the belief that the U.S. was founded as a Christian nation and should remain so in the future — and that our laws should reflect Christian values. A 2024 survey by the Pew Research Center found that half of U.S. adults think the Bible should have some influence on federal laws, even though the First Amendment prohibits the government from 'establishing a religion.' The public support for Christian nationalism from high-ranking members of the White House cabinet is alarming for civil rights advocates, political scientists and Christians alike who say it could impact policy, further gender inequality and promote fear among women. 'To have the Secretary of Defense repost this message is especially worrisome ... because it resonates so strongly with this notion of threat. What role does Pete Hegseth see the military playing in carrying out, in enforcing, in reinforcing this Christian nationalist understanding of women's submission?' Traci West, professor emerita of Christian Ethics and African American Studies at Drew University Theological School, tells Women Rule. A 2024 study from the Public Religion Research Institute found that a 'key aspect often linked to Christian nationalism is adherence to patriarchal ideals.' According to their research, 33 percent of Americans agree that 'in a truly Christian family, the husband is the head of the household, and his wife submits to his leadership,' while 51 percent of Christian nationalism sympathizers and nearly seven in 10 adherents to Christian nationalism agree with that statement. Also, 'there is a very, very high correlation between support for Christian nationalism, and those who voted for Trump in 2024,' says Diana Orcés, director of research at PRRI. According to Samuel Perry, a professor of sociology at the University of Oklahoma, with Hegseth and others in the Trump administration, there's a 'reassertion that 'No, patriarchy is not just an option, I think it's a good thing.'' Perry says that the Christian nationalist ideology has already influenced Trump administration policy, particularly regarding childbearing and fertility. He says that data shows that 'conservatives, even when they're quite pronatatalists,' i.e. promote having more babies, 'are actually the least likely to support things like paid leave and childcare, even tax credits — which, he says could make it 'more difficult for women to go back to work.' Jared Longshore, a minister of Wilson's church, tells Women Rule he personally supports President Donald Trump and is 'very grateful for what he's doing. … I'm certainly grateful for what he did with Supreme Court justices. … I know Pete has done things' related to women in combat roles. 'Scripture calls the husband the head and then the woman the body,' Longshore says. 'When you hear that the husband has a hierarchy in the home, we should think in the same way that we think about the relationship between our heads and our bodies.' Longshore says repealing the 19th Amendment is 'not something I'm pressing for, but when asked would I support that, I said yes, I would. … from the beginning of our nation up until the time of the suffrage movement, we had one vote per household and I think that would be a good thing.' Women Rule reached out to Hegseth to ask if he supported his church's belief that women should not vote or participate in government. In response, Chief Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell said in an emailed statement, 'The Secretary is a proud member of a church affiliated with the Congregation of Reformed Evangelical Churches, which was founded by Pastor Doug Wilson. The Secretary very much appreciates many of Mr. Wilson's writings and teachings.' POLITICO Special Report 'My Life Became a Living Hell': One Woman's Career in Delta Force, the Army's Most Elite Unit by Seth Harp for POLITICO: 'Courtney Williams was 24 years old when she learned of an intriguing job opportunity at an unnamed 'special mission unit' at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, the headquarters of the top secret Joint Special Operations Command. It was 2010, and she was coming off a four-year enlistment in the Army, in which she'd been an interrogator and Arabic linguist but never deployed. She was recruited at a job fair by K2 Solutions, a contractor in Southern Pines, North Carolina, run by former members of Delta Force, the Army component of JSOC.' Eleanor Holmes Norton Keeps a Low Profile as Trump Takes Aim at DC by Nicholas Wu for POLITICO: 'Washington's locally elected government is under attack from President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans. But the capital city's self-proclaimed 'warrior on the Hill' is nowhere to be seen on the front lines. Eleanor Holmes Norton, the District of Columbia's nonvoting House delegate, issued a written statement Monday after Trump seized control of the city's police force and moved to send in National Guard troops, calling it 'counterproductive,' a 'historic assault on D.C. home rule' and 'more evidence of the urgent need to pass my D.C. statehood bill.' Donald Trump Took Over DC's Police. Why Is the City's Mayor So Zen? By Michael Schaffer for POLITICO: 'Muriel Bowser has given Donald Trump everything a blue-city mayor could possibly give a MAGA president. And he kicked her in the teeth anyway. But what's most telling about the power dynamics between Washington's mayor and Trump's administration is that the Bowser allies I spoke to think Trump's furious White House press conference on Monday actually represented a victory of sorts.' Number of the Week Read more here. MUST READS Trump Has Said Abortion Is a State Issue. His Judicial Picks Could Shape It Nationally for Decades. by Christine Fernando for The Associated Press: 'One called abortion a 'barbaric practice.' Another referred to himself as a 'zealot' for the anti-abortion movement. Several have played prominent roles in defending their state's abortion restrictions in court and in cases that have had national impact, including on access to medication abortion. As President Donald Trump pushes the Senate to confirm his federal judicial nominees, a review by The Associated Press shows that roughly half of them have revealed anti-abortion views, been associated with anti-abortion groups or defended abortion restrictions.' A Right-Wing Influencer Tried to Be a Tradwife. It Almost Broke Her. by Michelle Goldberg for The New York Times: 'Lauren Southern, one of the most well-known right-wing influencers during Donald Trump's first term, first went viral with a 2015 video titled 'Why I Am Not a Feminist.' Then 19, beautiful and blond, Southern argued that women are advantaged in many areas of life, including child custody disputes and escaping abusive relationships. 'Feminists are unintentionally creating a world of reverse sexism that I don't want to be a part of,' she said. But being an antifeminist, it turns out, is no shield against abusive male power. Southern's new self-published memoir, 'This Is Not Real Life,' is the story of conservative ideology colliding with reality.' How One Oregon Activist Is Using a Decades-Old Liberal Policy to Stall Green Energy Projects in Rural Areas by Tony Schick for ProPublica: 'During the outcry against nuclear power in the 1970s, liberal Oregon lawmakers hatched a plan to slow an industry that was just getting started. They created a burdensome process that gave the public increased say over where power plants could be built, and the leading anti-nuclear activists of the day used appeal after appeal to delay proposed nuclear plants to death. It had a huge impact: Oregon's first commercial nuclear plant, the one that spurred lawmakers into action, was also the state's last. What those lawmakers didn't plan for was that 50 years later, an Oregon citizen activist would use that same bureaucracy to hinder some of the very energy projects that today's liberals want: wind farms and the new high-voltage lines needed to support them. They didn't plan for Irene Gilbert.' QUOTE OF THE WEEK Read more here. on the move Families Against Mandatory Minimums President Shaneva D. McReynolds has been appointed as a voting member of the United States Sentencing Commission's newly formed Sentence Impact Advisory Group. Dezenhall Resources has added Katie Runkle and Steffen Newman as associates, Amma Boateng as senior director of coalitions, Mary Grace Lucas as vice president and Jana Spacek as managing director of organizational development and operations. (h/t POLITICO Playbook) Meghan Green is now general counsel for the Senate Budget Committee. She most recently was general counsel for the House Intelligence Committee. (h/t POLITICO Playbook)
The Hill
8 hours ago
- The Hill
Unions' battle for survival hit new wave with Trump termination of bargaining agreements
Federal employee unions are bracing for battle after courts have lifted a series of injunctions that were stalling the Trump administration's plans to end collective bargaining rights at a number of agencies. Trump in March signed an executive order laying the groundwork for a sweeping rescission of a number of existing union contracts at government agencies. The administration argues 18 different departments have sufficient national security roles to qualify under a law allowing the suspension of union rights at such agencies. Since the most recent lifting of an injunction earlier this month, the Trump administration has canceled previously-signed collective bargaining agreements with at least five agencies, and more are expected. Unions acknowledge they are facing a 'setback' and must rethink aspects of their strategy for survival under Trump. 'This ruling is certainly a setback for fundamental rights in America,' Everett Kelley, president of the American Federation of Government Employees, the largest federal employee union, said in a statement earlier this month. Unions had argued that Trump was using national security as a pretext to go after organizations that have been vocal in challenging many other administration policies. But a panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed to a Trump administration request to lift the last of several lower court injunctions that broadly blocked implementation of the order. The panel rejected arguments that Trump's order and an accompanying fact sheet blaming 'hostile' unions for trying to 'obstruct agency management' were a sign of the true aim of the order. 'Even accepting for purposes of argument that certain statements in the Fact Sheet reflect a degree of retaliatory animus toward Plaintiffs' First Amendment activities, the Fact Sheet, taken as a whole, also demonstrates the President's focus on national security,' the court determined. In the two weeks since, the Trump administration has quietly terminated collective bargaining agreements at the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Environmental Protection Agency, USDA Food Safety Inspection Services, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Court battles on the executive order are still continuing on the merits, and a lower court judge on Thursday sided with the Federal Education Association, granting an injunction that would bar any termination of union contracts at the Department of Education. But as the legal wrangling continues, many unions are in a fight for their very existence. 'For sure, we are going to fight for our existence. It's very unsettling and very disturbing that the 9th Circuit issued the ruling that they issued. I don't think that any president should have any unfettered authority that goes unchecked,' Kelley, the president of AFGE, told The Hill this week. 'That's a portion of the reason why unions exist, to make sure there's checks and balances inside of the agencies.' The American Foreign Service Association (AFSA), which represents employees at the State Department and other related agencies, also sees it that way. 'The very nature of diplomacy is one of collaboration. It is one of bringing disparate parties together in order to get the input from all people involved, to find a commonality and an agreed upon way forward that isn't just done by ambassadors sitting in foreign ministries talking to heads of government,' said John Dinkelman, president of the group. 'It percolates down to the very depths of our profession. And what I've seen over the past six months is a stifling of the ability to extract from employees the full value of their potential input. Because, frankly, people are afraid,' he added, noting one employee who asked to have their name removed from articles they had written in AFSA's journal expressing support for previous administration policies. But unions are also stuck in a Catch-22, facing dead ends in other avenues where they might dispute the termination of their contracts, including the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA), which governs federal employee unions. 'We did file an unfair labor practice saying you've breached our collective bargaining agreement. But unfortunately, as expected, the FLRA has said, 'Hey, you're not recognized as a union right now, so we're putting this all on hold until all the until your court case is finished,'' said Sharon Papp, general counsel with AFSA. Trump fired the Democratic-appointed chair of the FLRA, Susan Grundmann, in February, despite her confirmation to a five-year term. Though a lower court initially reinstalled her, an appeals court in June removed her from her post while the legal battle continues. Unions are still hopeful that courts will ultimately side with their arguments that Trump's move is largely a retaliatory effort, but in the meanwhile, with the order now in effect, agencies can halt the collection of dues and are no longer communicating with union leads. Papp said she feels the plain language of the executive order makes clear the intent. In the fact sheet, the White House wrote that 'unions have declared war on President Trump's agenda' and that while he supports 'constructive partnerships with unions who work with him; he will not tolerate mass obstruction.' 'They don't like unions that don't get in line,' Papp said. 'They don't like unions that didn't support Trump when he was running for election, and so it has nothing to do with national security. It has to do with going after unions who gave Trump a hard time by filing lawsuits, by filing grievances, and it's plain in the language that came out with the executive order.' But she said some of the union's members worry about their affiliation and have declined to have a union representative present at disciplinary hearings. Nurses at the VA also see it as a response to their pushback on Trump plans they said would diminish care for patients. 'This is just the latest salvo in the battle to break the spirit of working people in this country,' National Nurses United said in a statement after their contract was among the first to be terminated following the court ruling. 'Nurses never abandon our patients, and we will continue to fight for the funding and safe staffing levels that our patients deserve. As union nurses, we understand that collective bargaining rights are fundamental to carrying out our critical role as patient advocates.' Despite the perception by many in the GOP of unions as left-leaning organizations, this week the Republican National Congressional Committee (NRCC) noted a shift. 'The Teamsters contributed to the NRCC and a sprawling list of House Republicans – signaling a monumental shift of working class voters towards the GOP,' the organization highlighted in an email. Beyond the court battles, unions are hopeful Congress could take up a discharge petition that would force the House to take a vote on a bill that would overturn Trump's March order. Though Democrat-led, the bill has also secured seven GOP co-sponsors, enough to pass the House if it was brought to the floor. Two Republicans have also backed the discharge petition effort: Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.) and Don Bacon (R-Neb.). 'I know that everyone who co-sponsored this legislation, no matter their party, did so because they know workers' rights are worth defending. They know that when workers collectively bargain, the result is a fairer workplace with dignity and respect. They know this order undermines core American values and leaves workers open to unfair treatment and political interference,' Rep. Jared Golden (D-Maine), who is leading the legislation, said in a press conference highlighting the effort. 'If every member who signed onto this bill shows the courage of their convictions and joins us, we can overturn this union-busting executive order.'
15 hours ago
Supreme Court allows Mississippi to require age verification on social media
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court on Thursday refused for now to block enforcement of a Mississippi law aimed at regulating the use of social media by children, an issue of growing national concern. The justices rejected an emergency appeal from a tech industry group representing major platforms like Facebook, X and YouTube. NetChoice is challenging laws passed in Mississippi and other states that require social media users to verify their ages, and asked the court to keep the measure on hold while a lawsuit plays out. There were no noted dissents from the brief, unsigned order. Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote that there's a good chance NetChoice will eventually succeed in showing that the law is unconstitutional, but hadn't shown it must be blocked while the lawsuit unfolds. NetChoice argues that the Mississippi law threatens privacy rights and unconstitutionally restricts the free expression of users of all ages. A federal judge agreed and prevented the 2024 law from taking effect. But a three-judge panel of the 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled in July that the law could be enforced while the lawsuit proceeds. It's the latest legal development as court challenges play out against similar laws in states across the country. Parents and even some teenagers are growing increasingly concerned about the effects of social media use on young people. Supporters of the new laws have said they are needed to help curb the explosive use of social media among young people, and what researchers say is an associated increase in depression and anxiety. Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch told the justices that age verification could help protect young people from 'sexual abuse, trafficking, physical violence, sextortion and more,' activities that Fitch noted are not protected by the First Amendment. NetChoice represents some of the country's most high-profile technology companies, including Google, which owns YouTube; Snap Inc., the parent company of Snapchat; and Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram. NetChoice has filed similar lawsuits in Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Ohio and Utah. Paul Taske, co-director of the NetChoice Litigation Center, called the decision "an unfortunate procedural delay.' 'Although we're disappointed with the Court's decision, Justice Kavanaugh's concurrence makes clear that NetChoice will ultimately succeed in defending the First Amendment — not just in this case but across all NetChoice's ID-for-Speech lawsuits," he said.
