New Mexico Democrat Proposes Strip Club Tax
New Mexico state Senator John Grubesic (DFL, pictured on the right) has proposed a $5 tax on strip club patrons similar to one currently on the books in Texas.
The Texas “Pole Tax” went into effect at the top of 2008. It is currently being challenged in the courts. Late last month, a Texas judge upheld the tax. There is a hearing scheduled for Jan. 22nd on club owners’ request that a judge bar collection of the fee by the state. The supposed rationale for this Texas strip club tax is that gentlemen’s clubs contribute to the commission of sex crimes (patently false), so the money raised will be partly used to help victims of sexual assault.
“It’s $5. That’s nothing. I think beer in these places runs around five bucks,” Grubesic was quoted as saying.
But what is to stop these freedom-robbing politicians from raising the tax even higher? If their ultimate goal is to shut down strip clubs and rob free-thinking, consenting adults from enjoying this type of entertainment, what is to stop them from raising the tax to $20 per patron? Or $50? There is absolutely nothing to stop them—if the courts do not. Just as your other taxes go up and up every year, you can expect this one to go up as well.
This is a clear and unmistakable infringement on the Constitutional rights of citizens. It is a tax on expression, nothing else. Millions of Americans go to strip clubs every year. The vast majority of strip club patrons are not perpetrators of sex crimes—or any other type of crime. They should not be singled out for special taxation just because they enjoy a particular form of expression targeted by grandstanding politicians.
If this attack on free speech is upheld by idiot judges, what will be allowed to be attacked next? Perhaps a tax on patrons of rap concerts? Or maybe a tax on romance novels? How about a tax on gay cross-dressing performances? Gays have the highest rate of HIV infection. How about the state tax their expression then use part of the money raised to treat HIV infections, with the rest going to the general fund to be squandered? We can apply this twisted logic to all sorts of different scenarios with the same end result: it is a tax on speech that is supposed to be protected by the United States Constitution.