The other thing I don't like about it is it comes will all kinds of strings attached (strings that limit free speech). That, btw, is the real reason Obama turned down the money.
Posted on 01/21/2011 8:00:55 AM PST by markomalley
In what the GOP is billing as a cost-cutting move, the House will vote next week on legislation that would end public financing of presidential campaigns and national party conventions.
The program, which Congress enacted during the aftermath of Watergate, is funded via voluntary taxpayer contributions of $3 a year when they file their federal income taxes.
"Eliminating the program all together would save taxpayers $520 million over ten years and would require candidates and political parties to rely on private donations rather than tax dollars," according to House Majority Leader Eric Cantor's office, which announced the move on its website Thursday.
Under current rules, presidential candidates can receive federal matching money for their primary campaigns if they raise a certain amount of private funds and agree to spending limits. The program also fully funds a party nominee's general election campaign, as long as the nominee agrees to refrain from taking more private contributions.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
I like this cut. Keep ‘em coming.
If tax money is used to fund any of the program, then I'd be in favor of killing just that part of the program.
Good, it’s about freaking time.
Yahoo!
It’s time - nay - LONG past time to end this travesty!!
Public funding makes no sense
Yes it is tax dollars. A lot of people who check it off, are people who didn’t really pay anything in.
If they want to donate a buck, donate it, we don’t need government to do this.
Hear, hear. Tear it all down!
The other thing I don't like about it is it comes will all kinds of strings attached (strings that limit free speech). That, btw, is the real reason Obama turned down the money.
The candidate who has a personal fortune to spend on getting elected is not going to spend that money on the public’s business once he or she is in office. Limit everyone to a preset amount and let's see which candidates do the most with the money.
Of course it has strings attached. You can't simply pass laws that limit free speech (or fund raising) because they're unconstitutional. But if the money is offered in exchange for agreeing voluntarily to the limits, that's fine by me, because it is the candidate's choice.
It's the same way that Congress gets a national 55 MPH speed limit passed or a lower blood alcohol level set, by tying every state's law to granting federal highway funds. You can set your state's blood alcohol limit to whatever you like, but if you want federal dollars, you have to have a .08 limit.
Obama didn't take the matching funds because he could raise more total money on his own than if he agreed to the matching fund cap. But McCain took the matching funds. Again, free choice.
I also don't have a problem with offering matching funds to all candidates. But if we had full public funding like the Dims want, then we'd have a thousand little parties spring up with their hands out. No thank you.
In fact, I think the idea of the federal govenment using money in this way has tilted the delicate balance the founders set up between the states and federal govt. heavily towards the federal government.
I don't know how you would end it, but taking money away from the states (in the form of taxes upon their citizens) and then giving it back to the states with strings attached needs to stop. The purpose of the tax system is to raise revenue for the operation of the government, not to give the federal government a tool to work around the limitations set upon it by the constitution.
Every day I’m waking up to more good news from the House.
Keep it up, boys and girls!
“I like this cut. Keep ‘em coming.”
Be careful what you wish for. Eliminating public funding will greatly reduce the ability of non trillionaire candidates to run for President. This is one program I would like to hang onto.
I don’t think either candidate will use it. They have to keep up with Obama’s middle eastern money
This isn’t something that has been around forever. As the article stated it came about after Watergate.
We either believe in cutting unnecessary spending or we don’t. This is welfare for politicians. Think about it.
Not a bad point, but I'm not sure I have a problem with multi millionaires and billionaires running for president. It means, in most cases, that they know how to run a business.
Just keep whacking this crap!
Too bad the last GOP majority House didn’t do that. If it had, McCain would not have gotten the nomination in ‘08, as he had run out of $$$ and had to rely on the public fund to finance the remainder of his campaign.
I was young and dumb I wrote a little note to send with my tax form one time years ago about donating a buck and I got an audit the next year lmao.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.