Rumor: Hillary Clinton preps for video game tax

by Ross Miller { Jul 24th 2006 at 2:55PM }

Brian Crecente of the Rocky Mountain News and Kotaku* is claiming that a reliable source that Senator Hillary Clinton is getting ready to advocate a tax to video games, much like cigarettes have their own special tax. Furthermore, Clinton is seeking out concerned parents who feel passionately enough about violent games to come and speak at ~~fundraising events~~ press conferences. We are confident that both sides -- the pro-tax and anti-gamers -- will be represented.

It would not be the first time that a game tax has been proposed (nor the first time that games have been compared to smoking), but Senator Clinton, likely a candidate for the 2008 presidential election, is gearing up to make this her punching bag for the next few years. Are you a registered voter?

While not confirmed, Crecente is a respected blogger and we trust that he is not just pulling this one out of thin air. Game Politics has more discussion on the subject.

* Kotaku was at war with Joystiq: Kotaku had always been at war with Joystiq.

Tags: jack thompson, JackThompson, legislation

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)

N3k74r @ Jul 24th 2006 2:58PM

Like games don't cost enough already.

Chris @ Jul 24th 2006 3:01PM

I can see her doing exactly this. It's not like Dems aren't always trying to jack taxes up anyways. Well get this. We all give her a big finger and buy our games online or off of ebay, and VIOLA!!!!!, no more taxes. I already hate walmart already,and she used to be their cfo so I'm sure she would just love that

Zo� K. @ Jul 24th 2006 3:03PM

Jebus. It's Joe Lieberman all over again.

I'm a bit torn. While I'd love to see a woman in office, I really don't know if she should be the one... especially at costs such as these.

And on that note, I feel, wow, that's a little trivial, you know? Letting something like video games influence your potential vote for the next leader of the free world. It feels wrong, but... is it really? Why stop at video games? She has a history of being very meddlesome as far as censorship goes, so what's to say she'll ever be satisfied?

Is it wrong to let the future of the game industry influence your presidential vote?

Devwar @ Jul 24th 2006 3:03PM

I think I remember seeing a poll somewhere that even though for the next presidential elections, the majority of people would be voting Democrat, the majority of people would also NOT vote for Hilary Clinton, something like 20% of people said they'd vote her versus like 50% that said not.

paix247 @ Jul 24th 2006 3:09PM

No way was she EVER Wal-Mart's CFO.
Where did you hear that?

dickweed @ Jul 24th 2006 3:11PM

She needs a good lay

Zo� K. @ Jul 24th 2006 3:12PM

Erm, Ross...

*points to "punchign bag"*

I hate people who correct my spelling, but I figure you might like to know. If not, just tell me, and I'll shut up. ^_^

Justin @ Jul 24th 2006 3:13PM

"Is it wrong to let the future of the game industry influence your presidential vote?" -Zoë K.

The question is:

Is it wrong, as a presidential candidate, to make this one of your main soap box topics when there are plenty other and more serious matters at hand.

Erkdagreat @ Jul 24th 2006 3:13PM

These people kill me, just cause our medium is interactive its so bad this hoe need a life. If she sat down and played a game maybe she would see games are just like music and movies.

Dave @ Jul 24th 2006 3:13PM

Soon, all activities will be taxed. America is a free country--for those who can afford it.

GTgamer @ Jul 24th 2006 3:15PM

If true, this is absolutely ridiculous. It's always great when politicians seize control of a strawman to start beating in the political arena as they try to make themselves look good while doing absolutely nothing that's truly beneficial to anyone.

Pretty soon they'll be talking about foam-padding everything about gaming. No violence, no laws being broken, and a moral (Christian-only, please) lesson packed into every video game. Loading screens will become "The More You Know..." sessions.

I predict the odds of any gaming tax money actually going to benefit/help treat the core causes of all the things video games are being scapegoated for is somewhere in the 0% range.

Why is it that rational, intelligent people often have to suffer for the absolute idiots of society as people pander to the LCD (lowest common denominator) of human intelligence/behavior. Politics and people are often instant mood killers.

JimmyHACK @ Jul 24th 2006 3:16PM

just another tax....

they already have sales tax,

guess movies/music/food tax are next...

apparently she has nothing else more important to deal with....

Erkdagreat @ Jul 24th 2006 3:16PM

i say she play a game on how to keep man from getting blow jobs

tactics @ Jul 24th 2006 3:19PM

let's just hope that nintendo saves the day once again... as in... getting a much larger demographic to play wii.

i feel that if 3-5x as many people are buying and playing videogames (of all types) than are now, there will be less enthusiasm about a tax like this... it'd be nice if we had a whole crew of AARP guys saying, "tax our video games now? these young whipper-snappers are going crazy!" wouldn't it? how about the female demographic that nintendo has been so good at capturing lately? "yes i want a woman for president hillary, but leave my nintendogs alone, bitch!"

...yeah. that'd be nice.

-"superfan" tactics.

DG @ Jul 24th 2006 3:22PM

FUD.

No way this is happening. People love beating on Clinton, but she hasn't said a single thing of the sort. I'll take it all back when/if she proposes such a thing, but this is just so dumb on its face. I really doubt this would happen.

Rich @ Jul 24th 2006 3:24PM

This is why repubs win elections. They dont want to take ur fking money like dems. Sorry we dont want to pay for stupid social programs. Welfare? What a joke! Social security? It's called a 401k, get one. Free healthcare? Get a job, join a union, and stop eating like a pig and getting cancer and heart attacks.

The only thing the govt needs to provide us is defense and education. Everything else, the private sector can provide.

Pip @ Jul 24th 2006 3:24PM

The only people thinking Clinton will run for President are republicans.

Anyone with half a brain knows she wont.

And yeah, this idea is really stupid and would probably be unconstitutional.

ZaBlanc @ Jul 24th 2006 3:27PM

Hillary Clinton was on the board of Wal-Mart for a while back in the day when Wal-Mart actually sold American made product. She's, of course, not anymore.

As for voting for her or not...do try to resist making your vote revolve around this one issue. Because, for God's sake, if it becomes a vote between her and Frist or McCain or even Giuliani -- you'll be sure to see the same or worse.

Think about it this way...if a tax is all that becomes of the video game market, be thankful. There are also a lot more important things going on in this country than this.

And, come on people, Hillary Clinton, nor any candidate for that matter, would possibly make this the big soap box of their run for Presidency. Ever hear of the Middle East or healthcare or education?

And if honestly believe this will be the major peg in her campaign, you really have to find some grounding in reality and look at the world going on around you. :-)

Zo� K. @ Jul 24th 2006 3:27PM

"The question is: Is it wrong, as a presidential candidate, to make this one of your main soap box topics when there are plenty other and more serious matters at hand." - Justin

Well, of course. That's a very viable question, but she's the only one who can really answer it. She's a politician... this is what they do. They pick hot button issues and they shop them around to anyone who has a concern and will listen.

The fact of the matter, though, is that I'm a voter and a gamer, not a politician. WHY Hilary has taken up this issue is fairly moot. The fact of the matter is, she is set in her ways, and the censorship of video games tends to be high on her political priority list. As a gamer, I have to look at what she presents me, no matter why she's presenting it, and make a decision.

With that in mind, is it right to make such a decision based on something like the potential censorship of video games? Is it too trivial an issue, or will it lead to bigger issues that have yet to be seen? Is it wrong to put the fate of our country in someone else's potentially hazardous hands simply because we work in a bipartisan system, and the other candidate opposes our beloved pastime? These are questions I've wrestled with in the past. I still find the answers don't come easy, if at all.

atlnative76 @ Jul 24th 2006 3:28PM

Now I found another reason to hate Hillary

retro @ Jul 24th 2006 3:31PM

God damn, I love living in Canada.

vaylen @ Jul 24th 2006 3:35PM

This is why she won't even win the Democratic Primary. I think Al Gore, Mark Warner, Barack Obama or John Edwards have a better chance of getting the nomination than her. Too many people HATE her for her to win.

MosquitoControl @ Jul 24th 2006 3:39PM

"Is it wrong to let the future of the game industry influence your presidential vote?"

Better that, which is a genuine issue, than gender, which you seem to be contemplating.

Don't vote a woman for office. Vote the best candidate. Which, barring nuclear war killing all but Hillary, will not be a woman this next election. Even then there will be cockroaches better fit to run a country.

There will be a time when a woman is the best candidate. And she'll likely win. Honestly, I think Hillary has no chance right now because she's a woman. I think there's enough crotchedy old men that will make sure she doesn't advance. And I think a lot of women don't want her to win because they're afraid the country will never let another woman run, not after what Hillary is likely to do.

Zach @ Jul 24th 2006 3:40PM

What I find unfair about this is the people that make these laws are politicians that are clueless about games, parents that hate their kids playing games, and mindless citizens that hear GTA is bad (from the news) and make an opinion on that. I'm 18 now and I can vote, but we are still vastly out-numbered by eligible voters that don't know enough or aren't too fond of games.

It really pisses me off when topics that matter to me get completely ignored. Our government finds it more useful to spend time on taxing video games, tearing down the 10 Commandments, and go chasing down people that download music off the internet. OBVIOUSLY such things are much important than basic human rights. We could debate killing babies in the form of abortion, but the MPAA needs to get their money for all those illegally downloaded copies of "The Matrix" first. Someone can't get their priorities straight.

There's another election coming up in a year and a half. Now I don't know how much President Bush has to do with our gaming hardships, but 2008 is a clean slate. We must choose then, and make sure you examine all the issues. You'll probably find that this particular issue goes much deeper, and opens up a door too all sorts of taxation issues that you have an opinion on.

If none of that made sense, the first paragraph was a comment, the second was a rant, and the third was advice.

MosquitoControl @ Jul 24th 2006 3:41PM

"This is why she won't even win the Democratic Primary. I think Al Gore, Mark Warner, Barack Obama or John Edwards have a better chance of getting the nomination than her. Too many people HATE her for her to win."

Obama is too green.
Warner is probably going to be the initial frontrunner.

But, assuming McCain gets the nod, he'll lose. I don't think anyone can take McCain. And by the time McCain is out of office (assuming he hopefully wins office) Obama will be ready.

And Obama might be unstoppable himself. Too early to tell, but I'd put money on him being one hell of a force when his time comes.

Thryon @ Jul 24th 2006 3:42PM

Looking at that photo of Hillary Clinton reminds me of Wallace and Gromit. I wish this story was about Wallace and Gromit instead.

Baboon @ Jul 24th 2006 3:48PM

If you feel very strongly about video games, of course this is a big enough issue to swing your vote, provided you also look at other issues you are concerned with. Voters have to vote their own personal interests, not which party they think they should (or for Clinton just because she is a woman), for democracy to function properly. You need to vote into office the person who represents your views, not try to change them when they get in.

carlos @ Jul 24th 2006 3:48PM

arent wee fucking payin enoguh for videogames wtf!!!!!!
this better not be true or i will quit gaming

ben @ Jul 24th 2006 3:49PM

If she get's elected, we can kiss video games goodbye..

Everyone has to blame the way america is right now on something. Hillary has chosen to blame it on video games.

Mat @ Jul 24th 2006 3:50PM

Rich (#14), if you just add a pro environment stance to your plan there I'd be inclined to vote for you!

:)

Zo� K. @ Jul 24th 2006 3:55PM

MosquitoControl,

I apologize if you read me wrong. I was not suggesting gender as a viable position to vote for. Can I not be interested in having a female in office without voting for her soley because she has a vagina? While you raise some good points, this was not what I meant.

If you must know, I've been denouncing this woman for a good while now. She's as conservative and intrusive as they come, which is funny, considering what party she sides with. Like I said, while I'd love to have a female in office, I don't think she should be the one... simply because I don't agree with what she stands for. Gender plays no role in how I vote. I simply think it'd be neat to see that kind of change in office... just in a better candidate.

Baboon @ Jul 24th 2006 4:01PM

I think we need to merge both parties into one super party, since their practices have become so similar, and introduce a 3rd party that is actually in touch with America under 40.

Zo� K. @ Jul 24th 2006 4:09PM

"I think we need to merge both parties into one super party, since their practices have become so similar, and introduce a 3rd party that is actually in touch with America under 40." - Baboon

No, what we really need to do is quite voting for extremists like George Bush or Hilary Clinton, and start taking up more moderate candidates. People who sit in the extreme left or right do so because they want to distance themselves from the other side as best they can, and...

...you know, I think I'm suggesting basically what you just suggested. I'll shut up now. :x

Zo� K. @ Jul 24th 2006 4:10PM

quit**

Bah.

Kemikal @ Jul 24th 2006 4:25PM

I propose a new Progressive party. Long live the Bull Moose! The democrats and republicans are becoming more and more similar. I'm a diehard liberal and if Hillary runs for office, I may just vote Republican. (BLEGH) Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with a female president, but she isn't presidential material.

VIVA LA BULL MOOSE REVOLUCION

Evil Inside @ Jul 24th 2006 4:27PM

I really don't see this happening. A tax on games would eventually mean a tax on all software, which there already is a sales tax for. Why would we need another tax added on?

DG @ Jul 24th 2006 4:39PM

People are dumb. Hillary, extreme? Because someone said she would propose a VIDEO GAME TAX?

If there was EVER a need for people to get over themselves, this is definitely it.

George Bush invaded another country on dubious evidence. With a stupd games tax you would compare the two?

Seriously, some of you need a bit more experience in the real world and less time spent in front of screens. If a video game tax is the straw that breaks your voting back, I would recommend that you stay home that first Tuesday in November. Being informed is your greatest responsibility as a citizen. Thinking video games taxes are more important than social justic, war and peace, and distribution of wealth is just incredibly stupid.

dan @ Jul 24th 2006 4:40PM

Gawd, it's like they don't want me to vote at all...

32_Footsteps @ Jul 24th 2006 4:42PM

You know, I could see a tax passing muster, but video game companies worming around it on technicalities.

One classic example is dolls versus toys - dolls are taxed more than toys, despite the fact that dolls are really just a subset of toys. This has led to companies going to court to argue that certain products are not dolls, but merely toys. (Go look up Toy Biz v. United States for more info.)

Similarly, watch video game companies start pulling stunts like this too. Pokemon encourages reading comprehension in minors, so it's not a game. Ratchet & Clank involves precision movements, so it's not a game. Halo involves training for shooting, so it's not a game. And so on - if this is true and if such a tax passes, video game companies will either a) find a workaround or b) buy enough politicians via lobbying money to riddle the legislation full of loopholes to render it ineffective.

Also, to take a sidelong jump into politics - Obama has a great shot, and him being "green" might work to his benefit - being one of the weakest governors in the United States for a couple of terms (as Texas' governor doesn't have nearly the power most governors have) sure didn't hurt the current President's chances of victory. Plus, Obama has many fewer awkward votes than most Senators. And really, by the 2008 elections, he'll only have 4 less years of political service than Hillary. Seems perfectly viable to me.

x silence x @ Jul 24th 2006 4:47PM

If that happens, it will be a good day to be Canadian...

TeddyN @ Jul 24th 2006 4:56PM

WHY, WHY, WHY, WHY, WHY?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!??!?!?

She lost my vote a long time ago from earlier anti-game proposals. I think the key for gamers is to vote carefully in the democratic primaries: if Hillary gets nominated, it'll be either her or a Republican who could possibly be even worse for gamers (although as a veteran, McCain could be sensible about these things?)

The question is, though: is this HER (ideologically) or is she just trying to make herself look electable to heartland America? Either way, she's annoying the hell out of me.

I've got an idea: let's have an 'entertainment' tax, to discourage people from such malicious activities as watching movies, listening to music, board games, sports, talking to friends, reading and sex. All of these things can affect people's behaviour and possibly make them violent. After all, the negative externalities on the things listed can't be any less then video games.

This whole controversy is so ridiculous that I feel like going on a violent GTA-like rampage through the streets of my town, this minute. Or I would. Actually, I'm just going to vent my anger by playing a bit in the streets of San Andreas.

dsub @ Jul 24th 2006 4:58PM

Do violent movies have a special tax? Do explicit lyrics CD's have a special tax? Does Porn have a special tax?

FUCK NO!!!

Then why in god's name should video games have a special tax. Cigarette's and Alchohol are one thing, being that they are harmful to your physical health. Video Games are in no way, shape or form any more harmful than television itself. This is completely absurd, and completely unconstitutional. Hilary Clinton will NEVER get my vote for president. NEVER.

Dirk Dorkelson @ Jul 24th 2006 5:05PM

"This is why repubs win elections. They dont want to take ur fking money like dems."

Funny how government spending under President Bush has continued to rise and eclipsed what it was under Clinton. At least Clinton actually had the money to pay for all his spending.

"Sorry we dont want to pay for stupid social programs. Welfare? What a joke! Social security? It's called a 401k, get one. Free healthcare? Get a job, join a union, and stop eating like a pig and getting cancer and heart attacks."

My mom went on welfare after she divorced my dad. She went back to school and got a degree and has long since paid for the expense of her being on welfare through the extra taxes she's paid as a higher wage earner. As for 401(k) being preferable to Social Security? I'd be willing to bet we're going to see a 401(k) scandal/collapse on par with the savings and loan scandals of the '80s sometime in the next 30 years.

"The only thing the govt needs to provide us is defense and education. Everything else, the private sector can provide."

Yeah, you just tell yourself that next time you drive to work on your privately funded road, pal.

TeddyN @ Jul 24th 2006 5:07PM

To number 33:
"Seriously, some of you need a bit more experience in the real world and less time spent in front of screens. If a video game tax is the straw that breaks your voting back, I would recommend that you stay home that first Tuesday in November. Being informed is your greatest responsibility as a citizen. Thinking video games taxes are more important than social justic, war and peace, and distribution of wealth is just incredibly stupid."

???
Democracy isn't reserved for the most important issues. If someone feels strongly about something such as video games, there's no reason why they shouldn't vote according to what matters to them. The democratic system takes that aspect of human beings for granted. People aren't 'stupid' just because they don't share your world view.
Hillary Clinton is showing that she isn't sympathetic to what is the hobby of millions of people. These millions of people would be doing nothing wrong by deciding that they don't want her representing them because of that aspect of her.
You do, however, seem to assume that when it comes to the final stage of the election people will just vote randomly on the other issues and just decide on games. Bear in mind that this is a 'GAME' blog, so people discuss politics through that lens. No need to be obnoxious by saying people who are upset by a games tax from hillary 'need to get out more'. Wtf?

Dirk Dorkelson @ Jul 24th 2006 5:09PM

Just to clarify, I think using video games as a cultural whipping post to get votes is pretty cheap. I just hate it when people (on the left or the right) spout partisan nonsense that has little basis in reality.

TeddyN @ Jul 24th 2006 5:11PM

To number 25:
Noooooo, don't do that! Then they will have won!

Baboon @ Jul 24th 2006 5:23PM

DG

One problem with your comparison.

Georgey isn't running next term, he can't. So I hope you are not condemning any republican candidate merely on Curious George’s missteps. And business taxes is a very legitimate concern, particularly for anyone who has a vested interest in the market affected (even just as a consumer). War is not the only part of the government for us to be concerned about.

And 32_Footsteps, that would be an understatement. All governor "Good Hair" Perry has to/can do is be a nice, pretty little figure head. Texas's state government is very convoluted and swollen. Makes me glad my permanent residence isn't there, just my College.