Close the Bonus Loophole to Fund Tuition
Plot Beats
The narrative micro-steps within this event
Josh and Toby develop their college tuition tax deduction proposal, identifying the executive bonus loophole as a funding source.
Who Was There
Characters present in this moment
Interested and clarifying — seeking to ensure he understands how the ruling alters strategy.
Ed asks clarifying questions about the ruling's implications and listens as the staff translates legal change into political moves and policy ideas.
- • Confirm the practical consequences of the Sullivan decision
- • Ensure no misunderstandings about debate inclusion and required responses
- • Stay informed so he can act on staff direction
- • Clear understanding of legal effect is prerequisite to useful political reaction
- • Small details in a ruling can create large strategic shifts
- • Staff must coordinate to translate legal events into practical steps
Eager and opportunistic, buoyed by the chance to turn chaos into a campaign advantage.
Josh seeds the policy idea aloud, translates it into rough fiscal math, volunteers to make outreach calls (Stackhouse), and plays the opportunistic campaign surrogate in the room.
- • Generate a politically attractive policy response to the Sullivan ruling
- • Frame the administration as proactively solving college affordability while creating campaign ammo
- • Signal willingness to engage Stackhouse and other actors to manage debate optics
- • Policy can be weaponized politically in real time
- • Voters will respond to concrete, big-ticket solutions on tuition
- • There are plausible offset mechanisms (closing loopholes) to make bold proposals credible
Controlled pragmatism — focused on optics and what will land with the press and public.
C.J. reads the court decision aloud earlier, interjects about the memo and Title IX, and acts as the skeptical press/communications voice, checking tone and reminding staff of messaging consequences.
- • Ensure any policy is message-ready and defensible in press
- • Keep the campaign from appearing opportunistic without substance
- • Clarify relevant memos and policy history for the room
- • Communications must shape policy before it leaves the room
- • Legal wins require careful framing for public consumption
- • Messy policy without narrative cover will be attacked by opponents
Skeptical curiosity — engaged in the math and wary of loose language, but willing to run numbers.
Sam pushes back on sloppy distinctions (salary vs. bonus), probes the numbers, confirms rough cost estimates and suggests where the remaining $15 billion might come from.
- • Clarify fiscal mechanics and semantic distinctions (bonuses vs salary)
- • Assess political feasibility by checking likely offsets
- • Prevent the team from making claims that OMB will immediately undercut
- • Precise language matters politically and legally
- • Cost estimates require OMB confirmation before public commitment
- • There are plausible offsets to fund significant education policy
Half-joking, half-serious — amused by the brainstorm but intent on practical detail.
Toby endorses and sharpens the idea (proposes an $80,000 cap), supplies skeptical humor, and helps translate a tossed-off notion into policyable elements.
- • Move the idea from rhetorical flourish to concrete policy parameters
- • Protect against naive framing by adding realistic constraints (cap)
- • Keep the conversation tethered to messaging and legal/political implications
- • Big ideas need tight framing to be politically viable
- • Humor can defuse tension while highlighting absurdities
- • Staff must prepare realistic numbers to avoid being caught flat-footed
Measured and opportunistic — ready to fold a big idea into a campaign plan if the numbers and optics work.
Bruno lists the parties affected by the ruling earlier, prompts legal and strategic thinking, and listens to the tuition exchange as the campaign strategist weighing electoral implications.
- • Identify policy ideas that yield campaign advantage
- • Assess which constituencies (e.g., Ohio/Michigan) can be won with the proposal
- • Make sure legal/strategic constraints are considered before messaging
- • Legal and electoral mechanics determine what policies can be sold
- • Third-party inclusion in debates complicates messaging and requires new ammunition
- • A bold tuition plan could be a differentiator if credibly funded
Focused urgency — prioritizing legal containment while permitting political staff to mine opportunity.
Leo shifts between legal triage (urging an appeal and recruiting Ritchie's people) and operational urgency; he listens to the policy brainstorm while keeping attention on court strategy.
- • Secure an expedited stay/appeal to the Supreme Court
- • Get political rivals to join procedural motions to strengthen their case
- • Contain legal fallout so policy staff can pivot to messaging
- • Legal containment must precede political posturing
- • Broad coalitions (including Ritchie) strengthen procedural motions
- • Staff should quickly generate politically viable responses to control the narrative
Objects Involved
Significant items in this scene
C.J. requests and reads a copy of the court decision aloud, using it to ground the room's panic into legal clarity. The document catalyzes both the debate-inclusion discussion and the pivot to policy brainstorming by establishing the ruling's scope.
The trial court judgment functions as the factual anchor for the team's legal/strategic moves; its existence forces talk of appeals, stays, and immediate campaign responses that create the opening for the tuition proposal to be deployed tactically.
Title IX is invoked by C.J. and others as rhetorical ammunition and historical precedent when discussing education policy and gendered political risk; it frames how a tuition plan might be defended or attacked in the public sphere.
Organizations Involved
Institutional presence and influence
Congress is the origin of the existing $1 million cap and the legislative avenue where any tax-code changes (closing loopholes, creating deductions) must ultimately be enacted.
The Republican Party is referenced as the opposing major party that will likely be included in debates and whose campaign (Ritchie's people) Leo wants to recruit for procedural motions.
The Office of Management and Budget is invoked as the fiscal validator — staff acknowledge the need to check OMB for official scoring of the proposed tuition deduction and offsets before public commitment.
The Trial Court issues the judgment invalidating the 15% threshold, acting as the proximate catalyst for the Roosevelt Room meeting; its judgment creates immediate operational and political consequences.
The Supreme Court is invoked as the necessary appellate forum; staff anticipate emergency stays and expedited appeals to blunt the trial court's effect and restore prior debate rules.
The Libertarian Party is one of the minor parties named as newly eligible for debates; its mention frames the scale of the ruling's disruption and indirectly pressures staff to find new policy messages.
Natural Law is listed among third parties newly advantaged by the ruling; its mention amplifies the perceived chaos and the need for fresh policy stances that can cut through a fractured debate stage.
Right to Life is named as another organization that would be eligible for debates under the ruling; its inclusion raises the stakes for messaging and coalitions.
The Commission on Presidential Debates is the institutional defendant whose 15% rule is struck down; its prior gatekeeping function is the root cause of the emergency that forces the Roosevelt Room to react and ideate politically.
Narrative Connections
How this event relates to others in the story
"Bruno and Sam's discussion of 'Sullivan v. Commission on Presidential Debates' leads directly to the reveal of the court's scathing ruling."
"Bruno and Sam's discussion of 'Sullivan v. Commission on Presidential Debates' leads directly to the reveal of the court's scathing ruling."
"Bruno's concern about Title IX questions and Josh's controversial memo on the same topic show ongoing political strategy and campaign priorities."
"Bruno's concern about Title IX questions and Josh's controversial memo on the same topic show ongoing political strategy and campaign priorities."
"Josh and Toby's dismissal of concerns about the 'Sullivan' case escalates to the revelation of the District Court's ruling in favor of Sullivan."
"Josh and Toby's dismissal of concerns about the 'Sullivan' case escalates to the revelation of the District Court's ruling in favor of Sullivan."
"Josh and Toby's dismissal of concerns about the 'Sullivan' case escalates to the revelation of the District Court's ruling in favor of Sullivan."
"C.J. reading the scathing court ruling immediately leads to Leo strategizing an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court."
"Josh and Toby's development of the college tuition tax deduction proposal culminates in Toby passionately arguing for the policy's human impact."
"Josh and Toby's development of the college tuition tax deduction proposal culminates in Toby passionately arguing for the policy's human impact."
"Josh and Toby's development of the college tuition tax deduction proposal culminates in Toby passionately arguing for the policy's human impact."
"C.J. reading the scathing court ruling immediately leads to Leo strategizing an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court."
Key Dialogue
"JOSH: "When Congress put the million cap on deducting salary they left a loophole for incentive-based bonuses.""
"TOBY: "Why isn't college tuiton 100% tax deductible.""
"JOSH: "Nobody's talked to the OMB, but I think it cost $50 billion. Closing the loophole is about $35 billion. Am I close?""