The Registration Fee Reduction Act

[Sir C. M. Siervicül]

Jan 7, 2014 5:04:47 GMT -6 Üc R. Tärfâ said:

But is the webhosting limited to the web-based voting system?
And if we need in the future to pay, for example, webhosting for domains not related to the electoral procedures?
And, as we know now the problem of the source of income and it's organically possibile usage, should we continue to ignore this "green elephant" in the room?
And, is it not preferable to avoid entirely the problem now and in the future of the organically possible usage of our 800$ budget, if needed?

The point is, if we amend the OrgLaw we will avoid just simply avoid this nightmare. Something like "Third, the Secretary of State may request from all parties a fee, to be set by law, to cover the cost of the election. This fee shall be uniform for all parties."

The web hosting is not limited to the web-based voting system, and we would not be able to use registration fees to cover any hosting we want, but we should be able to use them at least to cover a level of web hosting sufficient to operate a web-based voting system, even if the hosting can be used for other purposes as well.

On your suggested OrgLaw amendment, wouldn't you have to amend the 8th Covenant as well? It seems to me that the purpose restriction that you propose eliminating is the only thing keeping the registration fee from violating the 8th Covenant.

[Üc R. Tärfâ]

Jan 7, 2014 5:52:40 GMT -6 Sir C. M. Siervicül said:

Jan 7, 2014 5:04:47 GMT -6 Üc R. Tärfâ said:

But is the webhosting limited to the web-based voting system?
And if we need in the future to pay, for example, webhosting for domains not related to the electoral procedures?
And, as we know now the problem of the source of income and it's organically possibile usage, should we continue to ignore this "green elephant" in the room?
And, is it not preferable to avoid entirely the problem now and in the future of the organically possible usage of our 800$ budget, if needed?

The point is, if we amend the OrgLaw we will avoid just simply avoid this nightmare. Something like "Third, the Secretary of State may request from all parties a fee, to be set by law, to cover the cost of the election. This fee shall be uniform for all parties."

The web hosting is not limited to the web-based voting system, and we would not be able to use registration fees to cover any hosting we want, but we should be able to use them at least to cover a level of web hosting sufficient to operate a web-based voting system, even if the hosting can be used for other purposes as well.

Currently, yeah, because that says the OrgLaw
The question is: it is worth to keep that limitation?

Besides, as I've said previously this (the organic limitiation to use them only for electoral expenses) means also that we do have a serioua "organic problem" within our Treasury.

On your suggested OrgLaw amendment, wouldn't you have to amend the 8th Covenant as well? It seems to me that the purpose restriction that you propose eliminating is the only thing keeping the registration fee from violating the 8th Covenant.

Talossa shall never tax nor purport to tax, unduly burden, outlaw or abridge for its citizens any right to acts of:
- peaceful assembly;
- religious worship or affiliation;
- political speech or expression or affiliation;
- religious or historical or scientific or philosophical belief;
- abortion (being the freely conscious ability for a woman to make a determination on the continuation of her pregnancy);
- consensual sexual activity (between two consenting people of an age of responsibility); contraception;
- marriage (between consenting adults regardless of their sex, unless they are consanguineous up to the fourth degree of relationship),
- civil unions (and equivalents);
- divorce;
- adoption;
- advance health care directives;
- attempted suicide;
- euthanasia;
- the reading of any book;
- and the writing or use of any language.

We would violate the 8th Covenant only if we tax those acts. As neither "contesting elections" or "hold elective office" is included in the Covenant, we won't. A registration fee doesn't tax the freedom of "political speech or expression or affiliation;", because it doesn't affect those acts: "political expression" and "political affiliation" are still possibile without contesting an election. And anyway, the "fee" will still be in the OrgLaw.

[Sir C. M. Siervicül]

Jan 7, 2014 6:05:39 GMT -6 Üc R. Tärfâ said:

Besides, as I've said previously this (the organic limitiation to use them only for electoral expenses) means also that we do have a serioua "organic problem" within our Treasury.

The problem may be unavoidable. If there IS an organic problem with how registration fees have been handled so far, I question whether we could retroactively authorize the use of fees for other purposes, any more than we could go back and bill the leaders of former parties for $20 per election going back to the 1st Cosa.

Jan 7, 2014 6:05:39 GMT -6 Üc R. Tärfâ said:

We would violate the 8th Covenant only if we tax those acts. As neither "contesting elections" or "hold elective office" is included in the Covenant, we won't. A registration fee doesn't tax the freedom of "political speech or expression or affiliation;", because it doesn't affect those acts: "political expression" and "political affiliation" are still possibile without contesting an election. And anyway, the "fee" will still be in the OrgLaw.

You may have a point (I'm open to persuasion on this issue) but it seems to me that contesting elections is a pretty important aspect of political affiliation. You seem to be suggesting that we could in essence have two classes of political parties, one able to put up candidates for the Cosa if they consent to be taxed, the other exempt from tax as long as they're content to go without Cosa representation.

You note that the fee will still be in the OrgLaw, but all parts of the OrgLaw are not the same. The Covenant of Rights and Freedoms is "entrenched" and has a higher amendment threshold than the rest of the OrgLaw. So any amendment to another part of the OrgLaw that conflicts with the Covenant may be ineffective, or at least must be interpreted in such a way as to eliminate the conflict. So even if you strike out the explicit purpose requirement, a purpose requirement might be implicit anyways if standing for election is found to be an act of free assembly or political association or expression. Because, I would contend, the required payment is only a "fee" rather than a "tax" if its proceeds defray costs related to the activity for which the fee is assessed, rather than providing general revenue for the government.

[Istefan Perþonest]

The existence of a portion of a sentence justifying the existence of a power in a constitution does not normally limit the exercise of the power to the justified end. See, for example, the US Supreme Court's construction of the Copyright Clause of the US Constitution.

[Üc R. Tärfâ]

Jan 7, 2014 15:29:50 GMT -6 Sir C. M. Siervicül said:

Jan 7, 2014 6:05:39 GMT -6 Üc R. Tärfâ said:

Besides, as I've said previously this (the organic limitiation to use them only for electoral expenses) means also that we do have a serioua "organic problem" within our Treasury.

The problem may be unavoidable. If there IS an organic problem with how registration fees have been handled so far, I question whether we could retroactively authorize the use of fees for other purposes, any more than we could go back and bill the leaders of former parties for $20 per election going back to the 1st Cosa.

This could be eventually settled in a Court if the question arise. I don't know if this is valid in "Anglo-American tradition", but from where I come from this will not be a problem: if such a provision is erased from a Constitutional text, it lose its retroactive validity as it doesn't impose a new limitation (which cannot be imposed to those who performed actions when they were free of that new requirement, unless the act is still "in action"), but it free something from a requirement which is no longer needed.

Anyway, as you previously said:

Jan 7, 2014 4:22:45 GMT -6 Sir C. M. Siervicül said:

We'd have to check with the Burgermeister and MinFin to see whether an audit can reveal the source of all funds in the treasury, and how much came from registration fees versus other sources. If records are inadequate to un-mingle the funds, then even if someone were to file suit over the use of registration fees for non-election expenses, I think it likely that the courts would decide to grant only prospective relief rather than imposing the burden of throwing the treasury's baby out with the bath water.

The big difference, even if the Court decides against, is that we will no longer build a fund to which we cannot have access if needed.

And cannot be used for the Gov Budget. For example, the 45th Cosa Budget was $ 765.00, I'm guessing the largest part of that budget came from Registration Fees as the treasury at the end of the 44th cosa had $ 670.23 (Gov Financial Report 44th Cosa) and the total of the Registration fees collected fo the 45th Cosa election is $ 160.01.

(BTW, I'm still wainting the Gov Financial Report for the 45th Cosa).

Jan 7, 2014 6:05:39 GMT -6 Üc R. Tärfâ said:

We would violate the 8th Covenant only if we tax those acts. As neither "contesting elections" or "hold elective office" is included in the Covenant, we won't. A registration fee doesn't tax the freedom of "political speech or expression or affiliation;", because it doesn't affect those acts: "political expression" and "political affiliation" are still possibile without contesting an election. And anyway, the "fee" will still be in the OrgLaw.

You may have a point (I'm open to persuasion on this issue) but it seems to me that contesting elections is a pretty important aspect of political affiliation. You seem to be suggesting that we could in essence have two classes of political parties, one able to put up candidates for the Cosa if they consent to be taxed, the other exempt from tax as long as they're content to go without Cosa representation.

The freedom of political affiliation is for the citizen and he's not "taxed" because it's a member of a Party. The fee is on the Party to contest the election, it doesn't affect the right to political association. Only if the Kingdom adopt a law that requires the payment of a sum to the Royal Treasury by "Those who are member of a Party or any other political association" we will have a violation of the 8th Covenant. What if a Party requires a membership fee from their members? Again this is not a tax (which need to be levied directly from the State on the citizen), but a sum collected by that particolar association for its own structure. Even if this is used to pay the Registration Fee? Yes, because the citizen is free to leave that party.
The registration fee lacks the quality of a tax because it's not a legal obligation from which the taxpayer cannot escape without committing an offense.

Jan 7, 2014 15:30:05 GMT -6 Istefan Perþonest said:

The existence of a portion of a sentence justifying the existence of a power in a constitution does not normally limit the exercise of the power to the justified end. See, for example, the US Supreme Court's construction of the Copyright Clause of the US Constitution.

Could you please translate this? I'm clueless...

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

"The existence of a portion of a sentence justifying the existence of a power in a constitution does not normally limit the exercise of the power to the justified end."

Translated to Simple English: "the words which say why the Government needs a power [in this case, "to cover the costs of the election"] don't mean that that's the only thing the power can be used for, at least under US law."

[Üc R. Tärfâ]

Jan 7, 2014 17:17:26 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

"The existence of a portion of a sentence justifying the existence of a power in a constitution does not normally limit the exercise of the power to the justified end."

Translated to Simple English: "the words which say why the Government needs a power [in this case, "to cover the costs of the election"] don't mean that that's the only thing the power can be used for, at least under US law."

This affects the whole idea of constituional limitations.

[Sir C. M. Siervicül]

Jan 7, 2014 17:12:07 GMT -6 Üc R. Tärfâ said:

The freedom of political affiliation is for the citizen and he's not "taxed" because it's a member of a Party. The fee is on the Party to contest the election, it doesn't affect the right to political association. Only if the Kingdom adopt a law that requires the payment of a sum to the Royal Treasury by "Those who are member of a Party or any other political association" we will have a violation of the 8th Covenant. What if a Party requires a membership fee from their members? Again this is not a tax (which need to be levied directly from the State on the citizen), but a sum collected by that particolar association for its own structure. Even if this is used to pay the Registration Fee? Yes, because the citizen is free to leave that party.
The registration fee lacks the quality of a tax because it's not a legal obligation from which the taxpayer cannot escape without committing an offense.

I don't know if I can buy the argument that you're not taxing acts of political association by taxing a political association itself rather than the members separately. And because only parties (and not individual citizens) can run for the Cosa, we'd be saying that paying the tax (either directly or through a political associate paying on one's behalf) is a necessary condition for Cosa representation. Take the prohibition on taxing marriage. Could you get around that by requiring people to get married by a licensed officiant, and then imposing the tax on the officiant (knowing that he or she would presumably pass the tax on to the celebrants)? I doubt it.

Jan 7, 2014 15:30:05 GMT -6 Istefan Perþonest said:

The existence of a portion of a sentence justifying the existence of a power in a constitution does not normally limit the exercise of the power to the justified end. See, for example, the US Supreme Court's construction of the Copyright Clause of the US Constitution.

Depending on the circumstances, a law might have words that are merely descriptive of the purpose of a power while the power itself is fully self-contained in the granting language, or words that serve as a limitation or condition on the power. Regarding the Copyright Clause, the Supreme Court has held that the purpose portion of the clause ("to promote the progress of science and the useful arts") actually does define the scope of the power, but considering the Necessary and Proper Clause the Court gives Congress a great deal of deference in deciding how to structure the copyright system to achieve that end. See Golan v. Holder, 565 US __ (2012), which is the last major case on the Copyright Clause. Similarly, the power "to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions" has been held to be limited to those enumerated circumstances, which is why draft laws have been upheld based on the power to raise and support armies rather than the power to call forth the militia. See Arver v. US, 245 U.S. 366 (1918). I think the power to establish party fees "to cover the cost of the election" is most similar to the calling forth clause of any in the U.S. Constitution.

[Üc R. Tärfâ]

Jan 8, 2014 4:20:27 GMT -6 Sir C. M. Siervicül said:

Jan 7, 2014 17:12:07 GMT -6 Üc R. Tärfâ said:

The freedom of political affiliation is for the citizen and he's not "taxed" because it's a member of a Party. The fee is on the Party to contest the election, it doesn't affect the right to political association. Only if the Kingdom adopt a law that requires the payment of a sum to the Royal Treasury by "Those who are member of a Party or any other political association" we will have a violation of the 8th Covenant. What if a Party requires a membership fee from their members? Again this is not a tax (which need to be levied directly from the State on the citizen), but a sum collected by that particolar association for its own structure. Even if this is used to pay the Registration Fee? Yes, because the citizen is free to leave that party.
The registration fee lacks the quality of a tax because it's not a legal obligation from which the taxpayer cannot escape without committing an offense.

I don't know if I can buy the argument that you're not taxing acts of political association by taxing a political association itself rather than the members separately. And because only parties (and not individual citizens) can run for the Cosa, we'd be saying that paying the tax (either directly or through a political associate paying on one's behalf) is a necessary condition for Cosa representation. Take the prohibition on taxing marriage. Could you get around that by requiring people to get married by a licensed officiant, and then imposing the tax on the officiant (knowing that he or she would presumably pass the tax on to the celebrants)? I doubt it.

The officiant is required by law to officiate a marriage.
Parties are not required to contest elections. For example, NPW at the moment: that Party is enjoying the right of Political Association, like any other Party, and it's not taxed for this.

To contest an election is needed a Party, but a Party is not needed to contest an election in order to be a Party.

[Sir C. M. Siervicül]

Jan 8, 2014 4:46:00 GMT -6 Üc R. Tärfâ said:

The officiant is required by law to officiate a marriage.
Parties are not required to contest elections. For example, NPW at the moment: that Party is enjoying the right of Political Association, like any other Party, and it's not taxed for this.

To contest an election is needed a Party, but a Party is not needed to contest an election in order to be a Party.

If citizens want to associate for the purpose of seeking political representation in the Cosa, which is pretty much the ultimate act of political association, they are required by law to do so through a party. Saying that there are other acts of political association that they can engage in without being taxed (e.g. Forming a political organization that doesn't seek Cosa representation) doesn't help. That's like imposing a tax on the expression of certain opinions, but saying that doesn't violate the 8th Covenant because there are plenty of OTHER opinions that one can choose to express without being taxed.

[Üc R. Tärfâ]

Jan 8, 2014 5:10:20 GMT -6 Sir C. M. Siervicül said:

Jan 8, 2014 4:46:00 GMT -6 Üc R. Tärfâ said:

The officiant is required by law to officiate a marriage.
Parties are not required to contest elections. For example, NPW at the moment: that Party is enjoying the right of Political Association, like any other Party, and it's not taxed for this.

To contest an election is needed a Party, but a Party is not needed to contest an election in order to be a Party.

If citizens want to associate for the purpose of seeking political representation in the Cosa, which is pretty much the ultimate act of political association, they are required by law to do so through a party. Saying that there are other acts of political association that they can engage in without being taxed (e.g. Forming a political organization that doesn't seek Cosa representation) doesn't help. That's like imposing a tax on the expression of certain opinions, but saying that doesn't violate the 8th Covenant because there are plenty of OTHER opinions that one can choose to express without being taxed.

No, the point is wheter seeking political representation is essential, not "the ultimate act", for the freedom of political association. Which is not. So it doesn not violate the 8th Covenant.

Your example is misleading, because the presumption in a "tax on certain opinions" is purely subjective and not objective. A tax cannot have a "subjective presumption": you can't tax "certain opinions", but only opinions. And as the "act of expression of an opinion" is essential for the freedom of opinion, than it's a violation of the 8th Covenant.

[Sir C. M. Siervicül]

Jan 8, 2014 5:23:18 GMT -6 Üc R. Tärfâ said:

No, the point is wheter seeking political representation is essential, not "the ultimate act", for the freedom of political association. Which is not. So it doesn not violate the 8th Covenant.

Where you you get the "essential" part from? In any event, I disagree on whether it's essential. Without citizens performing acts of political affiliation for the purpose of seeking Cosa representation, our system of government could not function.

[Üc R. Tärfâ]

Jan 8, 2014 8:04:45 GMT -6 Sir C. M. Siervicül said:

Jan 8, 2014 5:23:18 GMT -6 Üc R. Tärfâ said:

No, the point is wheter seeking political representation is essential, not "the ultimate act", for the freedom of political association. Which is not. So it doesn not violate the 8th Covenant.

Where you you get the "essential" part from? In any event, I disagree on whether it's essential. Without citizens performing acts of political affiliation for the purpose of seeking Cosa representation, our system of government could not function

Where do I get it? How differently we could determine whether it's a violation of the 8th Covenant or not?
If your reasoning is right, you have to prove that you cannot exercise your right to political affiliation in a different way than seeking Cosa representation. You have to prove that an act of political affiliation, as included in the 8th Covenant, is ipso facto, contesting an election (and not seeking to contest, because if seeking Cosa representation is just the "ultimate act", and not the act of political affiliation itself, than the Registration Fee doesn't tax "the right to political affiliation" but the "ultimate, which is not the exclusive, purpose of that right of political affiliation"). If that is not true, than is possibile to exercsie such a right without contesting an election, the latter is not essential to exercise that right, than the Registration Fee doesn't violate the 8th Covenant.

If what you say it's true, and I'm not persuaded of that, than we have a VERY BIG problem. Because the funds collected through Registration Fees (i.e.: 160$ for the 45th Cosa, $80 for the 46th) cannot be used for something different than paying electoral expenses. An internal audit should be undertaken to determine which part of the $ 900 treasury come from registration fee (and I'm guessing probably 90% of them as we haven't paid electoral expenses for a long time, and those different revenues we had has already been probably spent). The Gov cannot include them in the Budget, so if the budget is $ 765 (45th budget) and the Treasury have $ 800 of which $ 700 came from Registration Fees, than the Gov Budget either is reduced to $ 100 or it should introduce other form of revenue to back the remaining $ 665. Moreover, even if we don't consider the past but only the future, even if we reduce the fee to $ 5,00 with a "just in case" approach as you suggest, I wonder if it's organic to use the fees collected for the 46th election to cover the costs of the 47th, 48th, 49th election. I'm guessing the answer is not. So if we don't use them to cover the costs of THAT election, we should refund the Parties. This is a nightmare. The largest, if not the total, part of the Treasury is untouchable.

I'm guessing that we all lived with the understanding that the registration fees are a way to finance the Kingdom by those who actually take the responsability of its running. (beacause only a blind would continue to pay $20,00, or even $ 1,00, to cover non existant electoral expenses). With this undestanding, and by using them (not necessarily using them to pay for something, but simply to financially back the Budget in the Cosa) we all violated the OrgLaw. Possibly twice, because if you are correct, than we de facto taxed the right of political affiliation of our citizen: we violated the 8th Covenant.

We should find a solution for this.

If I am right, than it's simple.
If you are right, than it's much more difficult:
(a) the largest part of the Treasury is untouchable, or even if the UC allows the Government to use them because "it's impossible now to determine their source (which is not true, at least it's possibile to do a very good approximation of that fund) we will live with the fact that we violated the 8th Covenant;
(b) the registration fees not used to pay the costs, if any, of the relevant election should be refunded, because they cannot be used to pay the costs, if any, of other elections.

Where is the truth?
At this point probably only the UC can tell us for sure. But I think that it would be more useful to petition the Court after an amendment like the one I proposed is approved. Because in this case, the Court may engage both aspects (8th Covenant and use of the already collected funds under the provision "cover electoral cost", and so if and how they can be used), in this way we will all now for sure what is organic and what is not in this mess; and we may adopt the necessary and organic measures.

[Sir C. M. Siervicül]

Jan 8, 2014 9:06:41 GMT -6 Üc R. Tärfâ said:

Where do I get it? How differently we could determine whether it's a violation of the 8th Covenant or not?

By looking at whether the law taxes acts of "political speech or expression or affiliation".

Jan 8, 2014 9:06:41 GMT -6 Üc R. Tärfâ said:

If your reasoning is right, you have to prove that you cannot exercise your right to political affiliation in a different way than seeking Cosa representation. You have to prove that an act of political affiliation, as included in the 8th Covenant, is ipso facto, contesting an election (and not seeking to contest, because if seeking Cosa representation is just the "ultimate act", and not the act of political affiliation itself, than the Registration Fee doesn't tax "the right to political affiliation" but the "ultimate, which is not the exclusive, purpose of that right of political affiliation"). If that is not true, than is possibile to exercsie such a right without contesting an election, the latter is not essential to exercise that right, than the Registration Fee doesn't violate the 8th Covenant.

I think that's an unreasonably narrow and cramped view of covenant rights. I don't think the government could justify tax significant categories of acts of political affiliation by pointing out that there are other means of political affiliation that are not taxed. Keep in mind that the 8th Covenant also prohibits laws that "unduly burden" or "abridge" the listed rights. A right to political affiliation that excludes affiliation for purposes of seeking Cosa representation seems significantly abridged to me.

Jan 8, 2014 9:06:41 GMT -6 Üc R. Tärfâ said:

If what you say it's true, and I'm not persuaded of that, than we have a VERY BIG problem.

That's true, although I think, in the event of a lawsuit, there are a number of arguments that the courts could rely on to justify issuing a judgment with only prospective effect.

[Üc R. Tärfâ]

Jan 9, 2014 4:07:08 GMT -6 Sir C. M. Siervicül said:

Jan 8, 2014 9:06:41 GMT -6 Üc R. Tärfâ said:

Where do I get it? How differently we could determine whether it's a violation of the 8th Covenant or not?

By looking at whether the law taxes acts of "political speech or expression or affiliation".

Jan 8, 2014 9:06:41 GMT -6 Üc R. Tärfâ said:

If your reasoning is right, you have to prove that you cannot exercise your right to political affiliation in a different way than seeking Cosa representation. You have to prove that an act of political affiliation, as included in the 8th Covenant, is ipso facto, contesting an election (and not seeking to contest, because if seeking Cosa representation is just the "ultimate act", and not the act of political affiliation itself, than the Registration Fee doesn't tax "the right to political affiliation" but the "ultimate, which is not the exclusive, purpose of that right of political affiliation"). If that is not true, than is possibile to exercsie such a right without contesting an election, the latter is not essential to exercise that right, than the Registration Fee doesn't violate the 8th Covenant.

I think that's an unreasonably narrow and cramped view of covenant rights. I don't think the government could justify tax significant categories of acts of political affiliation by pointing out that there are other means of political affiliation that are not taxed. Keep in mind that the 8th Covenant also prohibits laws that "unduly burden" or "abridge" the listed rights. A right to political affiliation that excludes affiliation for purposes of seeking Cosa representation seems significantly abridged to me.

OrgLaw «any right to acts of: [...] political speech or expression or affiliation»

I haven't said "justify tax significant categories of acts of political affiliation by pointing out that there are other means of political affiliation that are not taxed". My opinion is that "contesting an election" is rather one of the purposes of political affiliation, and that provision doesn't violate the 8th Covenant because it doesn't limit or tax the "right to acts of political affiliation".

Affiliation is defined as "the act to affiliate", and affiliate is (Collins)

vb /əˈfɪlɪˌeɪt/
(tr; followed by to or with) to receive into close connection or association (with a larger body, group, organization, etc); adopt as a member, branch, etc
(followed by with) to associate (oneself) or be associated, esp as a subordinate or subsidiary; bring or come into close connection
n /əˈfɪlɪɪt; -ˌeɪt/
a person or organization that is affiliated with another
(as modifier): an affiliate member

I'm contesting the fact that seeking election is indeed an act of political affiliation. A "right to acts of political affiliation" is for example the right to form a Party or similar Association: we're not charging the Party because of its existence, because it was founded. We wil violate the Covenant if we have a tax, or a fee for a citizen to become member of a Party. I'd agree with you if the Covenant would have said something like «political speech, expression, affiliation or activity». Contesting an election is an act of political activity, but not of political affiliation or expression. Because the charged Party is an already existing Party, and it's charged in order to be in the ballot paper for the General Election, not because "it's a Party". The conclusion is: the registration fee does not «tax nor purport to tax, unduly burden, outlaw or abridge for its citizens any right to acts of: [...] political speech or expression or affiliation».

Of course I might be wrong. But this was the "unsaid understanding".
In your reasoning, also the limitation of one year of citizenship to be Senator may unduly burden the act of political expression/affiliation.
Most countries (I can't say every because I don't know) do have statutory requirements in order to be allowed to contest election, like fees (symbolic), a certain number of signatures, and go on. But none of this is seen as limiting the right of political affiliaton of the citizens.

Jan 8, 2014 9:06:41 GMT -6 Üc R. Tärfâ said:

If what you say it's true, and I'm not persuaded of that, than we have a VERY BIG problem.

That's true, although I think, in the event of a lawsuit, there are a number of arguments that the courts could rely on to justify issuing a judgment with only prospective effect.

For the past maybe, but for the future? Is it possible to use them to cover costs of other elections different from the one the party paid for? I guess no. So we will need to refund the Party if we don't use all of the fees collected for that election to cover the costs (if any) of that election.

I'm not a staunch defender of Registration Fees, but I do think that they have a valid raison d'être (my Party Leader once said that it's a "necessary evil"), and they are a stable and reasonable source of income to "pay the bills" or finance project, etc. If we move away from that system, which we might do, we will need a source as stable as this one. Because even if we strictly use them to pay only the limited expenses, if any, connected to electoral procedures, we will be without sources. If we want to go along this route, finding other way, we must know that we will lack a certain stability. No stamps, no coins, no flags, no fees to obtain certificate, no donations could ever guarantee this (apart having a real tax on citizens but i'm sure it's a solution none is willing to adopt), and everytime we will need to cross our fingers: "I hope".