<p>Advocates for US state-level policy on behalf of low- and middle-income groups are increasingly focused on taxation but face difficulties framing policy goals. This case study of coalitions campaigning for progressive tax structures in Illinois and New York examines strategic framing. The article analyzes interviews and Facebook posts, websites and reports to examine how coalition members approached framing tasks (diagnostic and prognostic framing), how campaigns articulated frames, and variation across and within coalitions. While the prognosis was framed as fair tax in Illinois and investment/tax the rich in New York, the basic structure of arguments was similar—each bridged a public crisis to an inadequate tax structure and predicted some similar outcomes in their vision of hoped-for policy. Differences in political opportunity structure, time and policy accounted for some variation within and across coalitions. Consistent with prior literature, the history and structure of the coalition and organization characteristics were also important. Diagnostic posts in Illinois were less likely to identify a particular group to blame under the status quo or to hold responsible for paying more under new policy and described the wealthy in softer terms. This study shows the value of combining other types of data with social media when studying framing.</p>