House Votes to Gut Presidential Public Financing

ScienceChic
Topic Author
Mountain Champion

29 Jan 2011 16:15 #1 by ScienceChic

House Votes to Gut Presidential Public Financing was created by ScienceChic

No surprise, but this is disgusting.

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/01/hou ... -financing
House Votes to Gut Presidential Public Financing
— By Andy Kroll | Wed Jan. 26

The House of Representatives voted 239 to 160 on Wednesday, along party lines, to eliminate public financing for presidential elections. The bill to axe the Presidential Election Fund, as it's known, was brought to a vote without any committee hearings or expert testimony, and after only a day's worth of floor debate. Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), a staunch advocate of public financing, has called the move "a sneak attack on the system." Campaign reform advocates have likewise decried the financing repeal vote, saying it would usher in a new Watergate-like era where special interests—not regular voters—decide who wins and loses in American elections.

The public financing bill now moves to the Senate, where it's unlikely to gain traction because Democrats still hold a slim majority.

"Now, more than ever, the illusions of division threaten our very existence. We all know the truth: more connects us than separates us. But in times of crisis the wise build bridges, while the foolish build barriers. We must find a way to look after one another as if we were one single tribe.” -King T'Challa, Black Panther

The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it. ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is. ~Winston Churchill

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

LadyJazzer
Mountain Legend

29 Jan 2011 16:36 #2 by LadyJazzer

Replied by LadyJazzer on topic House Votes to Gut Presidential Public Financing

Hardly a surprise... After they figured out a way to pump unlimited, anonymous millions into the elections and allowing the corporations and PAC's to take over, the last step was to eliminate the public financing so they won't have any competition. (Of course, this may end up shooting most of the REALLY right-wing teabaggers in the foot, but hey, no problem...)

The good news is that this will die in the Senate...

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

pineinthegrass
Mountain Legend

30 Jan 2011 16:33 - 30 Jan 2011 19:34 #3 by pineinthegrass

Replied by pineinthegrass on topic House Votes to Gut Presidential Public Financing

In a somewhat related note, I've been a volunteer tax preparer for low income people and seniors. Even after you carefully explain that checking the $3 federal election fund box will not cost them anything in taxes, still less than 10% checked it (this link below puts the percentage at about 12% for all taxpayers and suggests some reasons http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/23305.html ).

So it doesn't seem very popular with taxpayers. And some candidates (including President Obama) do not accept money from that fund, I assume because it puts restrictions on their campaigns.

I haven't thought about it enough to take a position on it, it's just interesting how little support it gets from taxpayers.

Last edit: 30 Jan 2011 19:34 by pineinthegrass.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

jf1acai
Mountain Legend

30 Jan 2011 17:37 #4 by jf1acai

Replied by jf1acai on topic House Votes to Gut Presidential Public Financing

Perhaps taxpayers consider it to be just another waste of tax revenue, when it is pretty obvious that politicians have much more $$ available than they need, as evidenced by the ridiculously excessive political ads.

IMO, there should be a limit placed on the amount of $$ that can be spent by any candidate for office, regardless of the source of the $$. The limit should be based upon the office being sought.

Experience enables you to recognize a mistake when you make it again - Jeanne Pincha-Tulley

Comprehensive is Latin for there is lots of bad stuff in it - Trey Gowdy

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

conifermtman
Mountain Legend

30 Jan 2011 18:22 #5 by conifermtman

Replied by conifermtman on topic House Votes to Gut Presidential Public Financing

Oh the horror! This was a stupid idea from the beginning to have public financing of campaigns.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Rick
Mountain Legend

31 Jan 2011 09:06 #6 by Rick

Replied by Rick on topic House Votes to Gut Presidential Public Financing

We should have a dozen or so televised debates in which the candidates can make their cases.....ban all tv and radio ads which we all hate anyway. If these people want to drive around and shake hands, let them do it on their dime..we'll pay for the debates.

“We can’t afford four more years of this”

Tim Walz

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

FredHayek
Mountain Legend

31 Jan 2011 09:31 #7 by FredHayek

Replied by FredHayek on topic House Votes to Gut Presidential Public Financing

Does anyone use the money except for 3rd parties? I know Obama and McCain both turned down federal funds and restrictions.

CB, ban campaign ads? The media would lobby hard against that. A big election year is like Christmas to them. It is expected both sides in 2012 will spend 1 billion each on just the POTUS campaigns. That is a lot of tv/radio time.

Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.146 seconds