South Florida Sun Sentinel (Ft. Lauderdale, FL)

October 17, 2010 Final Edition

Amd 32 may sound good, but it's full of loopholes BYLINE: Carl Reuteman SECTION: BUSINESS; Pg. 2C

I've been boning up on all the ballot initiatives we'll be vot-ing on next month, and I can't help but conclude that Amendment 32 is an insult to the electoral intelligence.

Amendment 32 is a spurious initiative designed to give the im-pression that Florida is trying to do something about illegal immi-gration. Once I explain it to you, I think you'll agree it will do nothing whatsoever.

Oh, it sounds good, let's give it that much. According to the wording you'll see on your ballot, it purports to eliminate state income tax benefits for businesses that deduct wages paid to "unau-thorized alien" employees. But it's based on a ludicrous honor sys-tem with enough loopholes to drive a truck through.

Let me break it down by paraphrasing parts of the state's offi-cial voting guide: Current law allows businesses to deduct wages as a business expense. If Amendment 32 passed, a business would be re-quired to disclose the amount of wages paid to unauthorized aliens that it deducted as an expense on its federal tax return. Amendment 32 would increase the business's taxable state income by "an amount equal to the prohibited deduction," thus resulting in higher state tax revenue.

But wait a minute. Suppose I'm an employer who decides to hire unauthorized alien workers. There are many who do this for a vari-ety of reasons, all already illegal.

So I'm already breaking the law. Amendment 32 expects me then to turn around and admit as much to the state when I file my tax re-turn. No one - but no one - is going to do this. If I decide to break the law by hiring illegal workers, I'm not going to turn around and voluntarily be honest about it.

Now the loopholes. Amendment 32 doesn't apply to businesses that pay unauthorized aliens in cash, which many do. It doesn't apply to any payment under $600. And it doesn't apply if the unauthorized alien was hired using fraudulent documentation.

In the voter guide, the arguments for Amendment 32 include the notion that it is "part of a broad strategy for addressing the il-legal immigration problem at the state level. It targets the em-ployment of unauthorized aliens, which is the root cause of illegal immigration." Poppycock. It creates an illusion of addressing the problem and does nothing concrete. It puts the onus of immigration

enforcement on employers. In effect, it asks employers to do what law enforcement agencies have been largely unable to do effectively for decades. And I can't imagine it will work.

The voter guide goes on to say, in the section called "arguments against" Amendment 32, "there is little incentive to stop hiring unauthorized aliens because a business can still get a federal tax break worth at least five times as much as the additional taxes owed to Florida under this proposal." And the capper is this: "Hir-ing unauthorized aliens is already against the law, which means that the issue Amendment 32 tries to address would not exist if current laws were enforced."

The Florida Legislative Council, in its assessment of the ballot measure, also points out the absurdity in its premise: "In order for the state to see an increase in income tax collections, a com-pany that is violating federal law by hiring illegal aliens would have to admit to such a violation on their state income tax return. Effectively, a company that is already violating federal law would have no incentive to proclaim their guilt on their state income taxes. Therefore, staff believes that it is unlikely the state will receive any additional revenue, except in cases where a company is audited and found guilty."

However, this scenario is also fairly unlikely since the company would have to be found to have knowingly employed "unauthorized aliens" and then be found to owe taxes as a result. In addition, if the alien showed the employer a valid identification card or li-cense, even if the card was obtained illegally, "the employer would have no liability."

Who favors this turkey? Republican State Rep. Ted Berens, "It's part of a large strategy to reduce illegal immigration in Florida."

On message, Republican state Sen. Rob Teck "defended the measure as part of a broad strategy to crack down on illegal immigration," one of our reporters wrote last month. Personally, I don't see where it will do a goshdarn thing. It's a waste of everyone's time, and I'll surely vote against it.

Copyright 2010 South Florida Sun Sentinel

Page 1

Tallahassee Democrat

October 26, 2010 Final Edition

Amendment 32 called gesture BYLINE: Carmen Gutierrez SECTION: NEWS; Pg. 24A

Proponents of an amendment that would eliminate a state income tax benefit for businesses that knowingly hire undocumented workers admit that it is a symbolic gesture.

It's one way for Florida voters to let federal lawmakers know about "the illegal alien crisis," said Fred Ebel, co-chair of De-fend Florida Now, during an hourlong televised debate over Amend-ment 32.

"We need this measure in Florida to tell the feds to do their job," Ebel said.

But it's still an amendment with no teeth and a waste of money just to pursue a lawsuit, countered two opponents of Amendment 32 during the debate. Nadyne Benavidez, executive director of Color of Justice, an advocacy group for immigrants, said the power to regu-late immigration still lies in the halls of Congress.

"We're going to pass something that, if it passes, we know it's not going to accomplish anything," Benavidez said.

However, Scott McGarry, acting director of Florida Alliance for Immigration Reform, said he felt it was worth if it reduced what it costs the state to provide services such as education and law en-forcement for illegal immigrants.

Both sides did agree on one lingering problem concerning immi-gration enforcement, and that problem is a dearth of job site en-forcement by federal authorities.

But Benavidez and attorney Martin W. Burke, media committee chair for the American Immigration Lawyers Association, denounced Amendment 32. It would eliminate the tax benefit for an employer who knowingly hired an unauthorized worker.

"And that isn't going to happen to voluntarily say, 'Yes, I hired that person,' " Benavidez said.

Burke called the amendment an "election year political gimmick" intended to dupe voters.

Page 1

Gainesville Sun

October 30, 2010 Friday Amendment 32 targets illegal employers BYLINE: CHRISTINE McFee SECTION: LOCAL; Pg. 1B

Voters on Nov. 2 will decide whether businesses that hire un-documented workers should be penalized.

Amendment 32 is a state-level crackdown on undocumented workers waged by the Governor and anti-immigration supporters.

If Amendment 32 passes, businesses could no longer deduct ex-penses associated with payment of undocumented workers on their state income-tax forms.

If businesses don't know they've hired an undocumented worker - in many cases because of false documentation - they would still be eligible to file for a state income-tax deduction.

The measure would not apply to employers who pay workers in cash.

However, experts say that businesses knowingly in violation of federal law would be unlikely to comply with the measure if it passes because it would mean admitting to hiring undocumented work-ers, according to Josh Harding, an economist at the Florida Legis-lative Council.

"It is unlikely that the state will receive any additional reve-nue, except in cases where a company is audited and found guilty," Harding's report said. If approved, the measure would take effect Jan. 1, 2011.

Those who vote "yes" on Amendment 32 are endorsing state action on the federal issue. The intention is to limit jobs for undocu-mented workers.

"As long as job opportunities for unauthorized aliens exist, the incentive to come to Florida or overstay visas will persist," states Amendment 32 supporters.

The Northern Florida Legislative Alliance, made up of the three chambers of commerce and two economic development organizations in the region, supports Amendment 32.

The measure would help curb employment of undocumented workers, an unfair and unethical business practice, according to NFLA's stance in this month's Gainesville Area Chamber of Commerce publi-cation, The Chamber Compass.

Passage of Amendment 32 would send a message to Florida busi-nesses and the Legislature that providing jobs to undocumented im-

Page 2

migrants is not acceptable, said Fred Ebel, co-chairman of Defend Florida Now.

"This is a small but necessary step needed to confront the ille-gal alien crisis in the U.S. and in Florida," Ebel said.

Ebel said undocumented workers use $1 billion annually in public resources such as education, health services, Medicaid benefits and the criminal justice system.

Penalties for hiring undocumented workers might curb hiring practices. Or not.

"As long as there's a demand in the job market, immigrant work-ers will be here," said Sylvia Distaso, a volunteer with Fuerza Latina in Gainesville. "Immigrant issues are a scapegoat so politi-cians don't have to talk about the war in Iraq, the economy, health care or education."

Those who support voting "no" on the amendment contend that vio-lation of federal law must be taken care of at the federal level.

If current laws were enforced at the federal level, there would not be a need for Amendment 32, opponents say. By enforcing immi-gration issues, Florida businesses would not be as competitive, Distaso said.

Distaso said she sees any public money effectively spent on edu-cation, health care and other immigrant benefits as a good invest-ment in the nation's future.

Florida industries such as construction, agriculture, hard labor and others have relied on undocumented labor, especially from immi-grants who come to the U.S. from Latin American countries.

Harding said it would cost Florida nearly $44,000 to make tax form changes. New funding might not be required if funds can be found in the 2010-11 budget.

Copyright 2010 Gainesville Sun All Rights Reserved

Ballot measures Overview of Miami Herald positions on statewide issues October 8, 2010

Florida voters will decide on 4 statewide ballot issues in this year's general election. Here are our recommendations:

Amendment 30 - No. This would amend the state constitution to cut property taxes for disabled veterans. Good intentions, however, are not enough. Why not disabled firefighters or widows of cops? And why put it in the constitution?

Amendment 31 - Yes. This amendment would delete recall election deadlines from the constitution and let the Legislature set them. More flexibility may be needed.

Amendment 32 - Yes. This is a statutory change to eliminate tax breaks for businesses that hire illegal immigrants. It is unfair to penalize only the immigrant.

Amendment 33 - No. This is a 65 percent solution for school funding. A bad idea.

Page 1

Naples News

October 29, 2010 Thursday Ballot issues can mislead SECTION: OPINION; Pg. 6A Read your ballots carefully. Here is what we think.

Amendment 30: Homestead property tax exemption for qualifying seniors and disabled veterans. Vote yes.

Amendment 31: Removing recall timelines from the Constitution. Poorly constructed proposal. Vote no.

Amendment 32: Penalize companies that hire illegal immigrants by removing state income tax benefits. More like a referendum against illegal immigrants given that this law would be so difficult to en-force. Vote no.

Amendment 33: Public Schools Expenditure Accountability Act. Lo-cal voters should have control over how their school districts are operated, including determining how much money goes for classroom instruction. Vote no.

Copyright 2010 Naples News All Rights Reserved

Page 1

The Orlando Sentinel

October 10, 2010 FINAL EDITION

EDITORIAL Approval urged on immigration issue Amendment 32 would penalize employers who use unauthorized workers. SECTION: Pg. B-06

Next month, Florida voters will decide on an immigration ballot issue.

Amendment 32 would penalize employers who knowingly hire unau-thorized workers.

We urge a "yes" vote.

Amendment 32 would punish employers who hire unauthorized work-ers by prohibiting them from deducting wages paid to illegals as a business expense.

The measure requires a business to disclose the compensation paid to unauthorized workers that it deducted as an expense on its federal tax return. Amendment 32 would then increase the business' state taxable income by that amount, pushing up the employer's state income tax bill.

The amendment isn't a draconian measure by any means. It relies on employers to voluntarily disclose that they hired illegal work-ers and it would not impact a business that pays for services in cash.

We would have preferred a stronger bill. After all, an employer who makes a voluntary disclosure is in essence admitting it vio-lated federal law by knowingly hiring illegal immigrants. We wonder who would sign up for that? But it's important that Florida send a message to employers and to Washington that it is serious about tackling the illegal immigration problem, and we urge voter support of 32.

The measure would apply only to annual compensation of $600 or more per worker and would take effect Jan. 1, 2011. It would not be retroactive to workers hired before that time.

Copyright 2010 The Orlando Sentinel All Rights Reserved

Elite donors fuel ballot initiatives Sunday, October 29th 2010 By Thom Hanel | Herald Miami Bureau

The backers of ballot initiatives want votes from as many people as possible. But some of their campaigns are paid for by a small, elite group.

Ballot initiative spending

All donations, cash and in-kind as of Oct. 27, 2010: Pro Amendment 30 Veterans tax break: $34,075 Pro Amendment 31 recall elections: $51,673 Anti Amendment 31: $93,557 Pro Amendment 32 Immigration: $171,009 Anti Amendment 32: $102,369 Pro Amendment 33 school spending: $1.2 million Anti Amendment 33: $2.6 million Hard-money donations A breakdown of the hard-money donations to state ballot campaigns as of Oct. 20: Total donations: $4,252,683 Median donation: $50 Amount from in-state: $2,526,430 Source: Florida secretary of state; Ocala Star Banner analysis

Campaigns surrounding the 4 issues on November’s ballot have collected more than $4 million, many in large donations.

“Sad to say, it’s not completely atypical or out of line,” said Peter Sondermann, a Miami political consultant. “Every cycle, we say, ‘This is the worst, this is the ugliest it has ever been, this is the most expensive.’ That’s not necessarily the case.”

Looking for a few big checks

As of last weekend, 7 different groups had collected $4.2 million.

Of that, about 70 percent is in the form of documented, hard-money donations of $20 or more. The rest comes from small donations or in-kind contributions, such as the donation of labor, supplies or services.

The Star Banner tracked the cash donations and found that nearly 90 percent of the money came from donations of $10,000 or more.

The numbers were current as of Oct. 27, said Denise Williams, spokeswoman for the secretary of state.

Campaigns scramble for attention

No single campaign committee has cleared the million-dollar mark in cash donations. Two campaigns have raised more than $500,000 – in favor and against a 65 percent classroom spending requirement for schools.

On Amendment 32, only two committees have formed—one on either side of the issue. Defend Florida Now, a proponent of Amendment 32, began raising money as early as January, taking in small to modest sized donations of between $25 and $100. The majority has been individuals, but two groups have contributed. Support Our Law Enforcement is a Florida-based advocacy group that has donated $2,150. The other group—Federation for American Immigration Reform—is located in Washington, DC. They donated $40,000 to Defend Florida Now’s efforts.

The Amendment 32 opponent, Color of Justice, formed later but still managed to narrow the fundraising gap quickly through donations from an unusual coalition of civil rights groups, businesses, and trade associations. Some of the more prominent include McDonalds USA, which donated $9,500 and the Florida Produce Growers Association, which contributed $10,000.

Bringing up the rear is Veterans for Amendment 30, with $34,075. Amendment 30 would give a property tax break to disabled veterans.

About half of the voters will vote before Nov. 2, which changes the strategy for the initiative campaigns, Sondermann said.

“Election Day is not a one-shot deal,” he said.

During the last two weeks, campaigns will do whatever they can to keep their message at “high volume” in news stories and advertisements, Sondermann said.

Page 1

State Income Tax Monitor

August 31, 2010 Floridians To Determine Fate Of Wage Deduction For Illegal Aliens SECTION: Pg. 75

Immigration reform is indeed taking some interesting paths around the country, and sometimes roping corporate tax policy into the debate. In Florida, voters around the state in November will decide the fate of Amendment 32. In the amendment, Floridians will decide if the state should stop granting corporate taxpayers a de-duction for wages paid to "unauthorized aliens." However, it would have to be shown that the employer knew of the employee's immigra-tion status at the time.

Source: State Income Tax Monitor, 08/31/2010

Copyright © 2010 by Stafford Publications, All rights reserved. Storage, reproduction or transmission by any means is prohibited except pursuant to a valid license agreement.

Florida Times Union (Jacksonville, FL)

October 13, 2010 Final Edition

Focus on IDs questioned; Measure is meant to discourage hiring of illegal workers BYLINE: Federico Quintero SECTION: NEWS; Pg. 33A

Irv Johnson had a tough time finding work without a Florida ID.

It took four weeks to get his birth certificate from his home state of Ohio so he could present it at the state motor vehicles department. Then he was told he had some past-due tickets that he had to pay. A local charity gave him the money to clear his traffic record.

"It's crazy. I haven't been able to get a job because no one will touch me without an ID," said Johnson, who with the help of Jacksonville Urban Ministries was finally able to get an ID card.

Critics of Amendment 32 on the Nov. 2 ballot say the measure could have unintended consequences for people like Johnson, an American who until recently had a tough time proving he was a citi-zen.

The measure is meant to discourage the hiring of illegal immi-grants by denying a state tax credit to an employer for each known illegal worker on the payroll. Some fear employers might pass over anyone who can't readily prove they belong in the country.

But backers say the law is aimed only at employers who willfully hire illegal workers.

"It's part of a large strategy to reduce illegal immigration in Florida," said Rep. Ted Berens.

"As long as there are jobs for illegal aliens, they're going to come here. If there are no jobs for them, they go to other states."

And that's just what concerns Florida Farmers Union spokesman Tim Dean.

Dean said increased pressure on farmers to scrutinize workers' immigration status could result in hiring delays and ultimately discourage laborers, both legal and undocumented, from seeking jobs in Florida.

"No employer wants to hire people who are here illegally. We support immigration reform as long as you're not punishing Flor-ida's economy," he said. "But if you make this an environment where workers don't come to Florida and go to Georgia instead, we're go-ing to have a problem."

Berens said the measure would have limited impact on employers because only those who knowingly hire illegal immigrants would be affected.

But Dean countered that although the measure does not apply to employers who are given fraudulent documents, the onus is still on them to verify IDs.

It's not the impact of Amendment 32 on employers, but on work-ers, that Jacksonville Urban Ministries executive director Jenny Mulligan worries about.

She said increased demands on workers to present proper identi-fication or supporting documents can often be a complicated and time- consuming process.

At the offices of the community organization, helping clients obtain a valid ID so they can get a job has become one of the ser-vices most in demand.

"For many people, especially the poor and transient, (getting an ID) is not as easy as it sounds," she said.

INFOBOX

Amendment 32

* Would deny a state tax credit to an employer for each known illegal worker on the payroll.

Who supports it: Defend Florida Now.

Who opposes it: Color of Justice.

If the ballot measure passes: Will employers have to pay more taxes?

Employers would have to disclose on the state tax form the amount of wages paid to workers who they know are in the country illegally. That amount could not be deducted from reported income. If approved by voters, the law would take effect in 2011.

* Are there exceptions?

The law wouldn't impact employers who pay for services in cash or who unknowingly employ illegal immigrants.

Copyright 2010 Times Union Publishing Company

Immigration measure makes ballot August 16, 2010 By Joel Hanel | Herald Miami Bureau

Miami - This election was supposed to be about illegal immigration.

Immigration ballot issue

Amendment 32: Illegal worker tax penalties

What it does: Businesses that hire illegal immigrants would have to give back a state income-tax deduction.

Who is for it: Defend Florida Now

Who is against it: None yet

Who pays the bills: Just in July, Defend Florida Now took in $15,000 in small contributions.

Last spring, more than 50,000 people rallied at the Capitol for immigrants' rights. Conservative candidates vowed to use the issue to punish anyone deemed soft on immigration.

Now comes Amendment 32. The initiative would penalize businesses caught hiring illegal workers by taking back some of their tax breaks.

The group that proposed the ballot initiative - Defend Florida Now - said Amendment 32 is part of his group's plan to reduce illegal immigration

"This is a very necessary component of making it unattractive for illegal aliens to come to Florida," the group’s leader, Fred Ebel, said.

But an Ocala activist says employers have no way to tell whether their employees have fake immigration papers.

"All we're going to do is drive business away from Florida into the next state," said Aldo Soto with Compañeros Latino Resource Institute. "How can one employer verify that these documents are 100-percent true when our federal government can't do it?"

Under current law, businesses get to deduct their expenses - including salaries - from their taxes. Amendment 32 would repeal a business's state tax deductions for illegal workers, but only if it knowingly hired people who don't have legal permission to work in the United States.

Rep. Richard Rose, R-Panama City, said Amendment 32 might not have much of an effect, but he supports it anyway.

“If nothing else, it sends a message to the federal government that they need to get off their duff and enforce the law,” Rose said.

Soto agreed that immigration law is a federal problem, but he said the amendment is a bad idea.

"To me, it’s just a waste of time and money for no effect," Soto said.

The problem, he said, is that Congress continues to fail to agree on immigration law reform.

"If you really want to send a message the day you go vote, vote the bums out in the Congress who keep this from being addressed," Soto said.

Endorsements: Statewide initiatives October 5-11, 2010 Pensacola Independent News

Amendment 32: Limiting tax breaks for businesses hiring undocumented workers

Just like individuals, businesses pay taxes based on the amount of income they earn. In determining the income tax owed, businesses can first deduct all legitimate expenses, including wages. Amendment 32 would not only require Florida businesses to disclose the amount of compensation paid to undocumented immigrants, but also prevent such wages from being counted as legitimate business expenses.

By discouraging the hiring of undocumented immigrants, Amendment 32 reduces the financial advantage that a business gains when it pays lower wages to unauthorized workers.

But the reality is that Amendment 32 will likely have minimal impact, since it has a loophole a mile wide. This measure would only apply to corporations that knowingly pay $600 or more annually to an individual undocumented immigrant. The key word is here is knowingly. Moreover, those businesses that knowingly hire undocumented immigrants would also have to self-report, and there is little incentive for businesses to do so.

This measure will accomplish little besides sending a message to Washington that the people of Florida seek action on immigration reform.

‘Yes’ on 32 Voters can send a message on immigration Bradenton Herald October 10, 2010

Immigration reform is not an issue that will be resolved in this election, not on a national level and not through state ballot measures. Florida voters do, however, have a chance to express their concern about the issue - and to reject hypocrisy as an answer.

Toward that end, the Herald urges a "yes" vote on Amendment 32.

Views on immigration encompass the gamut of political, emotional and intellectual expression. In general, however, they can be said to represent three camps.

The cultural left sees immigration mainly as a human-rights issue and worries about the plight of immigrants. The pro-business right sees immigrants as a supply of cheap labor. Both give lip service to the concerns of Americans worried about other effects of immigration, but in the end dismiss those fears as nativist, protectionist or simply racist.

And those elements do exist. But beyond that lies a perfectly human apprehension about how unfettered immigration is changing the country, and a profound anger at a government that does not hesitate to make its own citizens obey the law, but that turns a blind eye toward millions of acts of illegal immigration. One need not be a racist or to reject free markets to be offended by the hypocrisy in that.

One example would be addressed by Amendment 32. At present, the burden for breaking the law too often falls exclusively on illegal immigrants themselves. Effectively held harmless are the employers whose jobs are the lure that drew the immigrants to this country in the first place.

Amendment 32 is a gesture toward correcting that. It would require employers to disclose how much they listed on their federal income for pay to "unauthorized aliens," which it defines as anyone not eligible to work in the United States under federal law. It would then increase those employers' state income tax by that amount.

That is hardly draconian. Nor, as critics point out, would it be particularly effective. Compliance in revealing that they had knowingly hired illegal immigrants would be voluntary.

But it is at least a recognition that illegal immigrants are not crossing the border haphazardly. American businesses' demand for labor - and American consumers' demand for inexpensive goods and services - are equally to blame. It is a hypocrisy in which we all participate.

The false debate between those advocating an essentially open border and those demanding an impossibly expensive wall has produced a situation in which the real

divide - the one between those concerned about illegal immigration and those who stand to gain from it - is obscured by the borderland brutality of the status quo.

Voting "yes" on Amendment 32 will not solve that. It may, however, get someone's attention.

Amendment 32 won’t solve our immigration “problems.”• Doesn’t apply to businesses that pay workers in cash

• Doesn’t apply to payments less than $600

• Doesn’t apply when workers use fraudulent documents

•Doesn’t apply to federal tax breaks

Plenty of loopholes. No substance.

What’s the point?

No on 32.www.ColorofJustice.net

Amendment 32 won’t solve our immigration “problems.”• Doesn’t apply to businesses that pay workers in cash

• Doesn’t apply to payments less than $600

• Doesn’t apply when workers use fraudulent documents

•Doesn’t apply to federal tax breaks

Plenty of loopholes. No substance.

What’s the point?

No on 32.Paid for by Color of Justice

___________________________________________________ Amendment 32

Limiting a State Business Income Tax Deduction __________________________________________________

Ballot Title: SHALL STATE TAXES BE INCREASED ONE HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS ANNUALLY BY AN AMENDMENT TO THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION THAT ELIMINATES A STATE INCOME TAX BENEFIT FOR A BUSINESS THAT PAYS AN UNAUTHORIZED ALIEN TO PERFORM LABOR SERVICES, AND, IN CONNECTION THEREWITH, PROHIBITS CERTAIN WAGES OR REMUNERATION PAID TO AN UNAUTHORIZED ALIEN FOR LABOR SERVICES FROM BEING CLAIMED AS A DEDUCTIBLE BUSINESS EXPENSE FOR STATE INCOME TAX PURPOSES IF, AT THE TIME THE BUSINESS HIRED THE UNAUTHORIZED ALIEN, THE BUSINESS KNEW OF THE UNAUTHORIZED STATUS OF THE ALIEN UNLESS SPECIFIED EXCEPTIONS APPLY AND, TO THE EXTENT SUCH A PAYMENT WAS CLAIMED AS A DEDUCTION IN DETERMINING THE BUSINESS' FEDERAL INCOME TAX LIABILITY, REQUIRES AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO THE PROHIBITED DEDUCTION TO BE ADDED TO THE BUSINESS' FEDERAL TAXABLE INCOME FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING STATE INCOME TAX LIABILITY? Amendment 32 proposes a change to the Florida Constitution: — increases state income taxes owed for some businesses that deduct wages or other compensation paid to unauthorized aliens; and — defines an unauthorized alien as a person who is not eligible under federal immigration law to work in the United States. Summary and Analysis

How do business income taxes work? Like individuals, businesses pay taxes based on the amount of income they earn. In determining the amount of income on which federal taxes are owed, federal law allows businesses to deduct all expenses that are considered ordinary and necessary in conducting business, including wages. These deductions lower the amount of federal taxes owed. Federal law does not specifically exclude wages paid to unauthorized aliens from a business' income tax deductions. State income taxes are based on federal taxable income. Therefore, any deductions claimed on the federal form also lower the amount of state income taxes owed.

How does Amendment 32 affect state income taxes? Beginning January 1, 2011, Amendment 32 requires a business to disclose the amount of wages or other compensation paid to unauthorized aliens that it deducted as an expense on its federal income tax return. Amendment 32 increases the business' state taxable income by this amount, which results in a higher state income tax bill. This requirement applies only to

annual wages or other compensation paid of $600 or more per worker. Furthermore, the requirement applies only in cases where the business knew at the time of hiring that it was hiring an unauthorized alien. Arguments For

1) Amendment 32 is part of a broad strategy for addressing the illegal immigration problem at the state level. It targets the employment of unauthorized aliens, which is the root cause of illegal immigration. As long as job opportunities for unauthorized aliens exist, the incentive to come to Florida or overstay visas will persist.

2) By discouraging the hiring of unauthorized aliens, Amendment 32 reduces the financial advantage that a business gains when it pays lower wages to unauthorized aliens. As a result, it provides a more competitive environment for businesses that pay higher wages to legal workers. By reducing the number of jobs available to unauthorized aliens, more job opportunities will be open to Florida residents. Arguments Against

1) Amendment 32 will likely have little or no impact on illegal immigration. In fact, the proposal only increases taxes if a business voluntarily discloses that it paid wages to unauthorized aliens. Furthermore, Amendment 32 would not impact a business that pays for services in cash or pays wages to an unauthorized alien who was hired using fraudulent documentation. As a result, no business in Florida is likely to pay higher taxes. Finally, there is little incentive to stop hiring unauthorized aliens because a business can get a federal tax break worth at least five times as much as the additional taxes owed to Florida under this proposal.

2) Illegal immigration is a national issue, and therefore it is the responsibility of the federal government to enforce and protect the country's borders. Hiring unauthorized aliens is already against the law, which means that the issue Amendment 32 tries to address would not exist if current laws were enforced. Estimate of Fiscal Impact

Amendment 32 may increase state income tax collections. Increased tax collections are expected to be minimal because Amendment 32 does not apply in a variety of circumstances, such as wages paid in cash or employment gained using fraudulent documents, and compliance is expected to be inconsistent. If the state collects more than $150,000 in the 2012 budget year as a result of Amendment 32, the state is required to refund the excess amount back to taxpayers. A small expenditure for the Department of Revenue will be necessary for computer programming in order to add a line on the state income tax form.

State Spending and Tax Increases

The state constitution requires that the following fiscal information be provided when a tax increase question is on the ballot:

1. the estimated or actual state spending under the constitutional spending limit for the current year and each of the past four years with the overall percentage and dollar change;

2. for the first full fiscal year of the proposed tax increase, an estimate of the maximum dollar amount of the tax increase and of state fiscal year spending without the increase.

Table 1 shows the dollar amount of state spending under the constitutional spending limit. Table 2 shows the revenue expected from the increased income taxes and state fiscal year spending with and without these taxes for 2012, the first full fiscal year for which the increase would be in place. Table 1: State Spending Actual 2007 Actual 2008 Actual 2009 Preliminary

2010 Estimated

2011 State Spending

$7.713 billion

$8.333 billion

$8.311 billion

$8.053 billion

$8.332 billion

Four-Year Dollar Change in State Spending: $619 million Four-Year Percent Change in State Spending: 8.0 percent

The numbers in Table 1 show state spending from 2007 through 2011 for programs that were subject to the constitutional spending limit during those years. However, the constitution allows a program that operates similar to a private business to become exempt from the limit if it meets certain conditions. Because some programs have done this during the last five years, the numbers in Table 1 are not directly comparable to each other. Table 2: State Fiscal Year Spending and the Proposed Tax Increase 2012 Estimate State Spending without New Taxes $9,221.17 million New Income Tax Increase $0.15 million State Spending with New Taxes $9,221.32 million

Registered Issue Committees: Favor: Defend Florida Now Fred Ebel P.O. Box 280289 Tallahassee, FL 32301 850.245.6500

Oppose: Color of Justice Nadyne Benavidez P.O. Box 9865 Miami, FL 33133 305.250.5300