The Grifter Tax — Part 2
A Constitutional Framework for Ending Monetized Deception
In Part 1, we made the case: the misinformation economy is the engine that spreads fascism, white supremacy, and Christian nationalism. It’s not enough to hold people accountable for what they’ve done—we need to cut off the money that funds what comes next. Lying is profitable. Until we change that, nothing else works.
Now let’s build the machinery.
What follows is a complete legislative framework—the Monetized Deception Accountability and Public Integrity Act (MDAPIA). It’s designed from the ground up to be constitutional, enforceable, and devastating to grifters while protecting legitimate speech, belief, and inquiry.
This is the architecture. Let’s walk through it.
The Constitutional Foundation
Every attempt to regulate misinformation crashes into the First Amendment. And it should—we don’t want the government deciding what’s true.
But the First Amendment has limits. It has always had limits. It does not protect:
Fraud
False advertising
Commercial deception
Defamation
Incitement to imminent violence
The framework exploits a well-established distinction: commercial speech receives less protection than political or religious speech. The Supreme Court affirmed this in Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission (1980) and has reaffirmed it repeatedly since.
The key insight: we regulate commerce, not belief.
You can believe vaccines cause autism. You can say vaccines cause autism. But when you sell a “detox kit” based on that claim, you’ve entered the realm of commercial activity—and commercial activity is regulable.
This distinction is the foundation everything else rests on.
Four Categories of Prohibited Claims
Not all deceptive claims are the same. Some are testable. Some aren’t. Some claim the mantle of journalism. A coherent framework must handle all of them—without requiring courts to adjudicate truth.
Category A: Non-Falsifiable Claims
Examples:
“Donate $1,000 and you’ll go to heaven.”
“This crystal will align your chakras.”
“My prayer cloth will heal your cancer through divine intervention.”
“Purchase this spiritual upgrade package.”
These claims cannot be empirically tested. Courts cannot evaluate whether someone received spiritual benefits. That’s precisely what makes them the perfect grift—you can never be proven wrong.
The Solution:
If the benefit promised is non-falsifiable, and the person receives money for it, the transaction is prohibited.
What this means:
You can believe in spiritual healing.
You can offer spiritual healing.
You can build an entire religion around spiritual healing.
You cannot charge money for non-falsifiable spiritual benefits.
The framework doesn’t touch belief. It touches commerce.
Rationale:
Prevents exploitation of the vulnerable
Does not require courts to evaluate theological claims
Does not regulate belief or religious practice
Only regulates commercial transactions
Category B: Falsifiable Scientific Claims Contradicting Established Consensus
Examples:
“Vaccines cause autism—buy my detox kit.”
“5G towers spread COVID—buy my EMF-blocking stickers.”
“Climate change is a hoax—support my foundation.”
Unlike metaphysical claims, these are empirically testable. Science has tested them. The scientific consensus is clear.
But we don’t want to ban scientific dissent. Galileo was a dissenter. So was Barry Marshall, who proved ulcers were caused by bacteria when the entire medical establishment said otherwise. Legitimate scientific minorities must be protected.
The Solution:
Monetizing claims that contradict established scientific consensus is prohibited—unless the claimant satisfies the Scientific Inquiry Defense.
Scientific Inquiry Defense Requirements:
Use of recognized scientific methods
Transparent disclosure of evidence
Reproducibility or attempted reproducibility
Submission for peer review (or good-faith attempt)
Good-faith intent to advance scientific understanding
What this means:
If you’re actually doing science—following the methods, being transparent, submitting to peer review—you’re protected even if you challenge consensus.
If you’re slapping “DOCTORS DON’T WANT YOU TO KNOW” on a bottle of sugar pills, you’re not doing science. You’re running a scam.
Rationale:
Prevents monetized pseudoscience
Protects legitimate scientific dissent
Courts judge methodology, not truth
Does not criminalize ideas—only commercial exploitation of false claims
Category C: Falsifiable Historical Claims Misrepresented as Fact
Examples:
“The Civil War wasn’t about slavery” (while hiding secession declarations)
Fabricated “ancient documents” sold as authentic
Monetized Holocaust denial using falsified evidence
“The Founders wanted a Christian theocracy” (while misrepresenting primary sources)
These aren’t matters of interpretation. They’re matters of evidence. When you monetize historical claims while misrepresenting the evidence—fabricating documents, selectively quoting sources while claiming comprehensiveness, lying about credentials—you’re committing fraud.
The Solution:
Monetizing historical claims while materially misrepresenting evidence, methodology, or expertise is prohibited—unless the claimant satisfies the Historical Inquiry Defense.
Historical Inquiry Defense Requirements:
Fair use of sources
Accurate representation of primary evidence
Disclosure of uncertainties
Presentation of claims as interpretation, not established fact
No material misrepresentation of expertise or credentials
What this means:
Academic historians disagree all the time. That’s protected. Minority interpretations are protected. What’s not protected is selling a book that claims the Confederacy wasn’t about slavery while deliberately hiding the secession declarations that explicitly say it was.
Rationale:
Does not ban historical opinions or interpretations
Prevents monetized pseudo-history and fabrication
Protects academic freedom and legitimate scholarship
Courts judge misrepresentation of evidence, not historical truth
Category D: Monetized Deceptive Journalism
Examples:
Fabricated “breaking news” stories presented with newsroom aesthetics
“Independent journalists” knowingly publishing false claims as verified fact
Content labeled as “investigative reporting” that invents sources or evidence
Monetized outlets claiming journalistic standards while deliberately lying
This is the legal vacuum that modern misinformation exploits most effectively. Traditional defamation law requires a harmed individual. Consumer protection doesn’t cover “news.” But when someone wraps lies in the trappings of journalism—anchors, chyrons, “sources say,” “we confirmed”—and monetizes it, they’re committing commercial fraud.
The Solution:
Monetizing materially false statements of fact while claiming journalistic authority is prohibited—unless the claimant satisfies the Journalistic Inquiry Defense.
Journalistic Inquiry Defense Requirements:
Reasonable evidence review before publication
Source vetting consistent with professional norms
Documented editorial process, even if informal
Transparent indication of uncertainty when applicable
No internal indications that the speaker knew the claim was false
Prompt issuance of corrections upon discovering an error
Good-faith effort to follow journalistic method
Exceptions: Clearly labeled opinion or satire; hyperbole no reasonable viewer would take as fact; good-faith errors from incomplete information; breaking news uncertainty if disclosed; and corrections made within 48 hours in good faith.
What this means:
Real journalists make mistakes. That’s protected. What’s not protected is knowing or reckless falsehood—claiming you “verified” something you made up, branding yourself as “news” while deliberately lying, monetizing fabricated stories while wearing the costume of a reporter.
Rationale:
Does not regulate opinion, commentary, or political persuasion
Prevents monetized fake journalism
Protects good-faith reporters who make honest mistakes
Courts judge misrepresentation of journalistic process, not viewpoint
What Counts as “Monetization”
Traditional fraud law often requires the victim to pay the fraudster directly. But that’s not how the modern misinformation economy works.
You don’t pay to watch PragerU videos. YouTube pays them. Sponsors pay them. The money flows through indirect channels.
The framework closes this loophole.
“Monetized Dissemination” includes:
Platform advertising revenue (YouTube, podcasts, etc.)
Sponsorships and brand deals
Subscription/membership revenue (Patreon, Substack, etc.)
Merchandise sales connected to the content
Affiliate revenue
Donations solicited through or because of the content
Book sales, speaking fees, and other derivative revenue
Any material benefit reasonably connected to the dissemination
If you’re getting paid because of the claim—whether directly or indirectly—you’re monetizing it.
The Substantiality Threshold
Not every mention of a prohibited claim triggers liability. The framework uses a “substantiality” test.
Content is “Substantial” if the Prohibited Claim:
Constitutes at least 25% of the total runtime or word count; or
Is featured in the title, thumbnail, marketing materials, or metadata; or
Materially contributes to engagement or monetization as demonstrated by analytics
This prevents frivolous claims while capturing content that is genuinely built around the deception.
Revenue Capture: Content-Level and Recursive
Here’s where the framework becomes devastating.
Content-Level Disgorgement
If a single piece of content (video, podcast episode, article, book chapter) constitutes “Substantial Content” containing a Prohibited Claim:
→ 100% of all revenue from that content is subject to disgorgement.
Not a fine. Not a percentage. Everything.
Recursive Enterprise-Level Disgorgement
If an entire channel, podcast, publication, or content enterprise meets certain thresholds:
At least 25% of content pieces qualify as Substantial Content; or
At least 25% of total revenue derives from Substantial Content; or
A sustained pattern (3+ months) of producing Substantial Content; or
The enterprise brands or markets itself around the Prohibited Claims
Then:
→ 100% of all revenue from the entire enterprise is subject to disgorgement—including revenue from non-violating content.
Why?
Because you can’t launder dirty money through clean content. If your business model is substantially built on deception, the entire revenue stream is tainted.
This is exactly how courts already treat enterprises built on fraud. RICO forfeiture. SEC disgorgement. FTC enforcement. The legal precedent is robust.
The Continuing-Offense Doctrine
What about content created before the law exists?
The Constitution prohibits ex post facto punishment—you can’t criminalize past legal conduct. But disgorgement isn’t punishment. It’s the return of wealth that was never lawfully earned.
The framework treats monetized deception as a continuing offense:
If deceptive content remains available for monetization after the law takes effect, every day it generates revenue is a new act of commercial deception
All revenue from that content—whether earned before or after enactment—is subject to forfeiture as the proceeds of a continuing deceptive scheme
This is established law. Courts have upheld it in fraud, securities, and consumer protection cases for decades. The grifters cannot grandfather their way out.
The Bounty System
Enforcement is always the bottleneck. Government agencies are underfunded. Prosecutors are overwhelmed.
So we create a market for truth.
Private Right of Action:
Any person may bring a civil action against a violator on behalf of the government (a “Relator”).
Upon successful adjudication:
The Relator receives 20% of all disgorged revenue
30% goes to funding the courts/parties involved in the fact-finding process to ensure there is always funding available for the system.
The remaining 50% is deposited into the Public Science Advancement Trust
This is modeled on the False Claims Act, which has recovered over $70 billion in fraud through whistleblower incentives. The SEC and IRS have similar programs. They work.
The effect:
Every monetized lie now has a bounty on it. Every grifter has to wonder if someone is building a case against them right now—someone who stands to make 20% of everything they’ve ever earned from the grift.
Exposing liars becomes profitable. The economics flip.
The Public Science Advancement Trust (PSAT)
The 50% that doesn’t go to bounty hunters funds something beautiful.
The PSAT supports:
Scientific research
Critical-thinking education
Public health communication
Historical literacy initiatives
The PSAT may NOT fund:
Ideological or political advocacy
The grifters fund their own destruction. Every dollar squeezed from the desperate by prosperity gospel preachers goes to fund actual medical research. Every dollar earned spreading anti-vaxx misinformation goes to fund public health. Every dollar made peddling historical revisionism goes to fund actual historians.
Constitutional Safeguards
The framework is designed to be bulletproof:
1. It regulates conduct, not ideas. Commercial exploitation is regulable. Belief is not. You can believe anything—you just can’t sell certain categories of deception.
2. It uses methodology, not doctrine, as the legal test. Courts don’t decide what’s scientifically or historically true. They decide whether you followed recognized methods. That’s a procedural question, not a truth question.
3. It is content-neutral in purpose. The goal isn’t to suppress any viewpoint. The goal is to prevent commercial fraud and protect the public from exploitation.
4. It explicitly protects legitimate dissent and good-faith work. The Scientific Inquiry Defense, Historical Inquiry Defense, and Journalistic Inquiry Defense carve out space for good-faith minority positions and honest mistakes.
5. It mirrors existing, upheld legal doctrines. False advertising. Medical fraud. Consumer protection. Securities fraud. The legal foundations already exist and have survived decades of constitutional scrutiny.
6. Disgorgement is remedial, not punitive. The Supreme Court affirmed in SEC v. Liu (2020) that disgorgement is a remedial measure—returning ill-gotten gains—not a punishment. This insulates it from ex post facto challenges.
7. It works with Section 230, not against it. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act shields platforms from liability for user-generated content—and for good reason. We don’t want YouTube or Substack held responsible for every lie someone posts. This framework respects that principle entirely. Liability attaches to the content creator who monetizes deception, not the platform that hosts it. Platforms keep their protections. Creators face consequences. The misinformation economy gets disrupted without breaking the infrastructure that makes open publishing possible.
What This Catches—And What It Doesn’t
Catches:
Televangelists selling salvation for money
Anti-vaxx influencers monetizing content that contradicts scientific consensus
Wellness grifters selling supplements with false health claims
Pseudo-historians monetizing fabricated or misrepresented evidence
Political operatives selling historically false narratives
YouTubers and podcasters generating ad revenue from pseudoscience or fake history
Fake journalists monetizing fabricated “news” while claiming journalistic authority
Any enterprise substantially built on monetized deception
Does NOT Catch:
Sincere religious belief and non-monetized practice
Non-commercial speech of any kind (say whatever you want for free)
Fiction clearly presented as fiction
Legitimate scientific minority positions (protected by Scientific Inquiry Defense)
Academic disagreement among historians (protected by Historical Inquiry Defense)
Good-faith journalism that makes honest mistakes (protected by Journalistic Inquiry Defense)
Artistic reinterpretation and creative expression
Political or religious expression not tied to commercial transactions
The line is clean: commerce triggers the rules; belief and non-commercial speech remain free.
There’s more below, but first: If work like this—building actual legal frameworks instead of just complaining about problems—feels worth having in the world, please consider supporting The American Manifesto. This is the kind of slow, detailed work that paid subscriptions make possible.
The Full Draft Legislation
The complete statutory text—the Monetized Deception Accountability and Public Integrity Act (MDAPIA)—is available as a separate document. It includes:
Section 1: Purpose and Findings
Section 2: Definitions
Section 3: Unlawful Conduct
Section 4: Scientific Inquiry Defense
Section 5: Historical Inquiry Defense
Section 6: Journalistic Inquiry Defense
Section 7: Remedies and Disgorgement (including recursive provisions)
Section 8: Civil Penalties
Section 9: Private Right of Action and Bounty Provision
Section 10: Public Science Advancement Trust
Section 11: Constitutional Safeguards
Section 12: Severability
Section 13: Effective Date
Section 1. Purpose and Findings
(a) Congress finds that:
Commercial deception, including the monetized dissemination of scientifically false, historically falsified, or non-falsifiable claims, constitutes an economic harm to the public and a distortion of the marketplace of ideas.
The First Amendment does not protect fraudulent or commercially deceptive speech.
Existing consumer protection laws fail to regulate indirect monetization models, including online advertising, sponsorships, platform-based revenue, and audience-supported monetization.
The public interest requires a uniform framework for regulating monetized deception without regulating belief, ideology, or non-commercial speech.
(b) The purpose of this Act is to:
Prohibit the monetized dissemination of deceptive claims;
Disgorge ill-gotten gains deriving from such deception, including recursively at the enterprise level;
Establish incentives for private parties to identify violations;
Fund scientific research, public education, and truth-based initiatives.
Section 2. Definitions
(a) “Monetized Dissemination” means any act of making a claim available to the public in exchange for, or in expectation of, material benefit, including but not limited to advertising revenue, sponsorships, subscriptions, donations, merch sales, affiliate revenue, or algorithmically monetized content.
(b) “Prohibited Claim” means any claim that falls within:
Category A: Non-falsifiable metaphysical or supernatural claims offered in exchange for money or material benefit;
Category B: Falsifiable scientific claims that contradict established scientific consensus without satisfying the Scientific Inquiry Defense;
Category C: Falsifiable historical claims presented as fact while materially misrepresenting sources, evidence, methodology, or expertise;
Category D: Materially false statements of fact disseminated by any person claiming or implying journalistic authority, process, or standards, where the dissemination is monetized and the statement is presented as factual reporting rather than opinion, satire, or commentary.
(c) “Substantial Content” means content in which a Prohibited Claim:
Constitutes at least 25 percent of the total runtime or word count; or
Is featured in the title, thumbnail, marketing materials, summary, or metadata; or
Materially contributes to engagement or monetization as demonstrated by algorithmic or analytical metrics.
(d) “Enterprise” means any channel, account, podcast, publication, platform presence, or aggregated body of monetized content under common control.
(e) “Revenue” includes all gross income derived from monetized dissemination.
(f) “Continuing Commercial Deception” means any monetized dissemination of a Prohibited Claim that remains available for monetary benefit after the effective date of this Act.
(g) “Journalistic Integrity Representation” means any claim or implication of journalistic authority, including use of titles such as “reporter,” “journalist,” or “correspondent”; branding content as “news,” “breaking news,” or “investigative report”; claims of verification or source vetting; invoking journalistic standards; presenting content in news-style format; or self-identification as an “independent journalist” or equivalent while claiming factual reporting.
Section 3. Unlawful Conduct
(a) It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly or recklessly engage in the Monetized Dissemination of a Prohibited Claim.
(b) Each instance of Monetized Dissemination constitutes a separate violation.
(c) Content published before enactment of this Act is subject to this section if it remains available for monetized distribution after the effective date.
Section 4. Scientific Inquiry Defense
(a) A person charged under Category B may assert a Scientific Inquiry Defense by showing that the claim arises from:
Use of recognized scientific methods;
Transparent disclosure of evidence;
Reproducibility or attempted reproducibility;
Submission for peer review;
Good-faith intent to advance scientific understanding.
(b) The burden of proof lies upon the claimant asserting this defense.
Section 5. Historical Inquiry Defense
A person charged under Category C may assert a Historical Inquiry Defense by demonstrating:
Fair use of sources;
Accurate representation of primary evidence;
Disclosure of uncertainties;
Presentation of claims as interpretation, not fact;
No material misrepresentation of expertise or credentials.
Section 6. Journalistic Inquiry Defense
A person charged under Category D may assert a Journalistic Inquiry Defense by demonstrating:
Reasonable evidence review before publication;
Source vetting consistent with professional norms;
Documented editorial process, even if informal;
Transparent indication of uncertainty when applicable;
No internal indications that the speaker knew the claim was false;
Prompt issuance of corrections upon discovering an error;
Good-faith effort to follow journalistic method.
Exceptions: The following are not Category D violations: clearly labeled opinion or satire; hyperbole no reasonable viewer would take as fact; good-faith errors from incomplete information; breaking news uncertainty if disclosed; and corrections made within 48 hours in good faith.
Section 7. Remedies and Disgorgement
(A) Content-Level Disgorgement
Upon a finding that a piece of content constitutes Substantial Content containing a Prohibited Claim:
The violator shall disgorge 100% of all revenue derived from such content,
Including revenue earned prior to enactment, pursuant to the doctrine of Continuing Commercial Deception.
(B) Recursive Enterprise-Level Disgorgement
If any Enterprise meets any of the following thresholds:
At least 25% of all monetized content pieces constitute Substantial Content;
At least 25% of enterprise revenue derives from Substantial Content;
A pattern of Substantial Content over any three-month period;
Any structural reliance on Prohibited Claims for marketing or audience acquisition;
Then:
→ The violator shall disgorge 100% of all revenue generated by the Enterprise during the violation period, including revenue derived from non-violating content.
(C) Continuing-Offense Rule
For purposes of disgorgement:
Monetized availability of content after enactment constitutes the completion of the commercial deception;
All revenue derived from such content—whether earned before or after enactment—shall be treated as the proceeds of the continuing deceptive act and subject to forfeiture.
This section is remedial, not punitive.
(D) Evaluation Lock-In Rule
Once a civil action is initiated against any piece of content:
That content shall be fully evaluated regardless of subsequent removal or demonetization;
If found to constitute Substantial Content, it shall count toward the author’s entire catalog for purposes of determining enterprise-level liability under subsection (B).
Section 8. Civil Penalties
(a) A civil penalty of up to $50,000 per violating content item may be assessed.
(b) Penalties may be increased up to threefold in cases of willful or reckless violation.
(c) Courts may impose injunctive relief, including demonetization, labeling requirements, or removal orders.
Section 9. Private Right of Action and Bounty Provision
(a) Any person may bring a civil action on behalf of the government (”Relator”) against a violator.
(b) Upon successful adjudication:
The Relator shall receive 20% of all disgorged revenue;
30% of disgorged revenue shall be allocated to funding the courts and fact-finders involved in the processes involved in this legislation;
The remaining 50% shall be deposited into the Public Science Advancement Trust (PSAT).
(c) Frivolous claims may result in sanctions.
Section 10. Public Science Advancement Trust (PSAT)
(a) All recovered funds shall be deposited into the PSAT.
(b) The PSAT shall support:
Scientific research;
Critical-thinking education;
Public health communication;
Historical literacy initiatives.
(c) Funds may not be used for ideological or political advocacy.
Section 11. Constitutional Safeguards
This Act:
Regulates commercial conduct, not belief or speech content;
Prohibits deception, not dissent or ideology;
Provides clear, content-neutral standards;
Targets material benefit, not viewpoint;
Allows good-faith scientific, historical, and journalistic inquiry;
Is remedial through disgorgement, not punitive retroactivity.
Preserves Section 230 protections for platforms by attaching liability solely to content creators.
Section 12. Severability
If any provision is held invalid, the remainder shall not be affected.
Section 13. Effective Date
This Act takes effect 180 days after enactment.
The Bottom Line
This is the machinery. It’s constitutional. It’s enforceable. It’s devastating to grifters while protecting everything that deserves protection.
The misinformation economy survives because lying is profitable and truth is not.
The Grifter Tax fixes the economics.
It makes lying financially catastrophic. It makes exposing lies lucrative. It funds science with grifter money. And it does all of this without touching belief, without censoring ideas, without giving the government power to decide what’s true.
We regulate commerce. We leave belief alone.
That’s the framework. Now let’s build the political will to pass it.
Your Move
You’ve seen the machinery. Now tell us what you think.
Where do you see vulnerabilities in the framework?
What edge cases concern you?
If you have legal expertise, what would you strengthen?
Would you support legislation like this?
This is a draft—a starting point. Help us make it better.
Legal Foundations
This framework synthesizes principles from established constitutional and regulatory law:
Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission (1980) — commercial speech doctrine
SEC v. Liu (2020) — disgorgement as remedial, not punitive
False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3729 et seq. — qui tam/bounty enforcement model
FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45 — authority over deceptive commercial practices
Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel (1985) — disclosure requirements for commercial speech
RICO forfeiture provisions — enterprise-level disgorgement precedent
State consumer protection statutes — models for private right of action
I’m not a lawyer, but this seems well thought out and and accurate and effective to me. I’ve forwarded to friends to maybe get the word out as this really needs to be widely publicized until there’s real interest from the public. Have you sent this proposal to groups, agencies, lawyers etc. who can make this happen?
Unfortunately I don't think I will ever get a chance to read & digest this whole plan, but I just want to say including something like “This supplement cures cancer,” which is already prohibited, doesn't help your argument about how to prohibit things which aren't prohibited. Otherwise, from what I've been able to take in, this is an impressive piece of work.