The other day, I had reason to have e-mail correspondence with the head of the criminal division of the Attorney General’s Office of a state that will remain unnamed. Don’t worry. I’m not in any legal trouble. I simply had publicly opposed the idea of imposing a 15-cent "fee" on one’s Internet-access bill — something that Congress had put a moratorium on with the "Internet Tax Freedom Act," which was recently renewed. The fee is intended to fund a special task force to fight Internet-based crime … for "the children," of course.

Anyway, this public servant took time out of his publicly funded work day to send me a snarky email, lecturing me in a condescending way that I have no idea what I’m talking about. See, I’m not a lawyer. So I don’t get it. The 15-cent charge is a "fee" and not a "tax," so it’s entirely legal. I didn’t go to law school, nor am I a high-powered bureaucrat, so I should not dare to question my liberal puppet masters.

Silly me. Anyway, here’s the text of the email I received (with identifying information redacted):

I am writing to you after having read your [views] this morning. I understand your opposition … but I was interested in one aspect of your argument. When you were quoted that “supporters … can call it a fee all they want but by any legal definition it is clearly a tax”, I am genuinely interested in what legal authority you are referencing. The language in the Internet Tax Freedom Act in 47 USC 1151, SEC. 1105, par.(8)(A)(i) states that a “tax” is defined as:
 
“Any charge imposed by any governmental entity for the purpose of generating revenues for government purposes, and is not a fee imposed for a specific privilege, service, or benefit conferred.”
 
Clearly the language in [our bill] state that the money can only be used in a manner which benefits the user who is paying the fee. I have heard from many opponents that this bill will be found unconstitutional and I would like to know what case law or statute that allows you to reach this conclusion. The attorneys in our office and the constitutional professors that have reviewed this bill cannot seem to locate any jurisprudence or statues which support your position.  Perhaps we might rethink our position if you could provide us with your sources.

I look forward to hearing from you soon.

Well. Here was my response — in which I felt his insulting tone deserved to be returned in kind:

Thanks for reading my piece. Since I’m not an attorney, I appreciate the clarification on this point of law. As you say, "clearly the language in [the bill] state [sic] that the money can only be used in a manner which benefits the user who is paying the fee."

By that definition of "fee" and "benefit," I suppose the people of [your state] should be sending legislators letters of gratitude for their restraint. What might they think up next? How about an additional $1 "fee" for the "benefit" of the AG’s office going after those Nigerian princes with the fat bank accounts I keep reading about? Crack that caper, and there’s a good chance that the "benefit" will pay for itself and maybe the citizens can get refunds.

But, as I said, I’m no attorney. So I bounced your rebuttal off [my legal team]. I learned that charging fees for a specific "privilege, benefit or service" is a routine action of government — such as charging a $10 fee for garbage pick-up, or tacking on an additional fee for the cost of a license plate when registering a car. In the context of [your bill], for the 15-cent charge to qualify as a "fee" it would have to be charged only to a particular Internet criminal to reimburse the AG’s office for the cost of prosecuting that particular criminal. Since this fee would be paid by all Internet users, it is a tax — "no question in my mind," said my legal advisor. 

Clearly, this is a key point of dispute. And we’ll see in time whether this "fee" on Internet access will withstand those legal thingys people file when they don’t like something. And, if the law is struck down, I imagine it will be after the state has spent quite a bit of money and manpower defending it. Maybe [you guys] could impose another "fee" for that "benefit" too.

I leave it to the supporters of this policy, like you, to explain to the people of [your state] that indiscriminately paying more money to the government every month is not really a tax. If calling it a "fee" becomes non-operational — both legally and rhetorically — maybe you could try "investment" or "contribution."  I’m here to help.

Warm regards,

[Your humble TAC contributor]

I share this for two reasons. One: I haven’t posted anything in a while, and this is mostly a cut and paste job … so it’s easy. Two: I think my reply is kinda funny.

But, more importantly, I think this correspondence reveals the kind of arrogance inherent among the elites who think they can order our lives better than we can. It was not enough, mind you, that this apparatchik’s boss had already exercised his opportunity for public rebuttal (and enjoyed roughly twice the space I consumed to do so). No. This guy could not resist the urge to pile on — while on the public dime, no less. Oh, and to attempt to cow and humiliate me. He failed. He’s wrong. And, in time, that will be borne out.

I’ve been engaging in public debates for my whole professional life. So I can take it. But this guy’s treatment of an ordinary person is a little outrageous. It is not enough that he has the power of the state behind him, and citizens have merely the power of words and persuasion at their disposal. Even relatively mild opposition to a government plan is to be reflexively countered immediately and sharply — so as to intimidate the citizen into silence. How dare I, a layman, attempt to apply common sense to the clear intent of law Congress passed to prevent government from raising the cost of accessing the Internet, no matter how small.

Well, I dare. And will continue to oppose the kind of bullying of "ordinary" people by government officials that is a hallmark, not of America’s tradition, but of socialist countries that treat the public not as citizens, but as subjects.