Ok .. what's the difference from taking and accepting our tax dollars??
Taxes are compulsory, so they aren't donations. Political donations aren't compulsory, so they aren't "taken" in the same sense that taxes are. That's why I went with "accepted." BTW .. any chance you are a lawyer?
Not a lawyer. *I'm opposed to public financing of campaigns. That's just welfare for politicians. **If you are against it .. how is it that above you said you are for "accepting" it??
I should have been more clear, and the terms are a little confusing in this parlance. When you, as a member of the public, contribute to a campaign, that's a private contribution. "Public financing" involves the federal matching funds that are recieved in that little $1 box on your tax return. It's a pool of money that election officials dole out if candidates agree to have certain rings through there noses regarding the time and the amount of their spending. I'm for unlimited private contributions and no public financing. So then I guess you don't have a problem with George Soros donating 15 million to get Bush out of office?
Not as a matter of principle, though I think Soros is a scumbag. I'm for free political speech, including that of scumbags. I also wouldn't have a problem if someone gave Bush the same amount. I could be wrong .. but when were people forced to take the funds or mark the option on their tax return? If I recall it's an option ... a choice
It is... for now. It's the beachhead of the campaign finance reformers who want full public financing. Most of those on the Left who favor CFR are in this camp. They want to collect tax money (compulsory) and then have unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats orchestrate campaigns and elections based on whatever regulations are then in vogue. The government should hold elections, not manipulate them.
|
