Kucinich, Hunter Certified for Primary Season Matching Funds
December 20th, 2007On December 20, the Federal Election Commission determined that Duncan Hunter and Dennis Kucinich qualify for primary season matching funds. The FEC also set the amounts that each of the 7 candidates will receive next year in the FEC’s first payment of such funds.
The amounts for Democrats will be: John Edwards $8,800,000; Chris Dodd $1,400,000; Joe Biden $857,000; Dennis Kucinich $100,000. For Republicans, John McCain $5,800,000; Tom Tancredo $2,100,000; Duncan Hunter $100,000.
These leading candidates have not sought matching funds: Republicans Rudy Guiliani, Mike Huckabee, Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, and Fred Thompson; and Democrats Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and Bill Richardson.
Although Tom Tancredo withdrew on December 20, it does not necessarily follow that he can’t receive primary season matching funds, although the issue is unclear. If he had waited until January, he clearly would have been entitled to the funds.
December 20th, 2007 at 12:00 pm
Wow, only $100,000 for Hunter and Kucinich?
December 20th, 2007 at 12:18 pm
Well McCain is now officially joins Tancredo and Hunter in the third-tier category.
Tancredo – out
Hunter – next
McCain – no surrender until he’s squeezed the tax-payer for every posible cent, then out
December 20th, 2007 at 4:22 pm
Hunter is the best. He will endure until the end.
God Bless
Danny
December 20th, 2007 at 6:43 pm
see video: Ralph Nader says, “I Do Like Kucinich”
December 20th, 2007 at 8:05 pm
I think it’s unfair that you need rasie money for candidates. I think every candidates should have fixed amount to work with, and that’s it. It’s about who has the most money wins or corprate media wants a candidate to win. Dennis Kucinich is the best candidate but it is sad that the media does not give him equal time or no time at all. I hope it changes someday.
December 20th, 2007 at 8:17 pm
I’d love to see a Kucinich vs Paul General Election, especially if there was no 12th Amendment. They would definitely change things in DC
December 20th, 2007 at 9:51 pm
David, I agree- some states have such a system for state races as Maine does. A minimum number of $5 contributions qualifies one for state funding capped at a certain amount that can be increased if an opponent opts out of the clean system or if independent expenditures for ones opponent or against is spent. check it out: http://janus.state.me.us/legis/statutes/21-A/title21-Ach14sec0.html
December 20th, 2007 at 10:13 pm
Actually, McCain is surging right now and his chances look better each day.
December 21st, 2007 at 12:08 am
Darryl: I think we can change avoid the 12th Amendment loophole by proposing the following: have each party nominate 2 candidates, the voters would be given 2 votes (1 for President and 1 for VP)and presto. The electors (from the Electoral College) still cast 2 votes, 1 for Pres and 1 for VP. With this idea, all the candidates would fight for the top 2 spots. The idea of a ticket is just useless, have the candidates win the office. However, there could be an exception where if a ticket does get an absolute majority of the votes, both candidates would get electoral votes. Plus you’d avoid a ticket with a weak Pres candidate but strong VP candidate (which could make it seem counterproductive for the ticket). Third parties and independents would do extremely better I think.
December 21st, 2007 at 12:58 am
I’d actually prefer that voters cast a ballot for individual electors, instead of a bloc of electors. There are two ways this could be done:
the first method would be using the Congressional Method, whereby you vote for 3 Electors, 1 from your district & 2 At-Large;
the 2nd method would be to cast a ballot for individual Electors all of whom would be At-Large, casting a vote for upto the total number of Electors for your State.
December 21st, 2007 at 8:11 am
I’m assuming that with the first idea, you’re given 3 votes and can do the following: give all 3 votes to electors of the same party, give 2 votes to 2 electors of party A and 1 vote to 1 elector of party B or give 1 vote to 1 elector of party A, B & C. With the second idea, if your state has say 55 electoral votes, you’re given 55 votes and must vote for 55 different electors (and you can’t give any elector more than 1 vote). Is this correct?
December 21st, 2007 at 10:23 am
Derek, that is correct.
I’d love to see what the vote totals would look like under either scenario.
December 21st, 2007 at 12:23 pm
Party politics and loyalties sacrifice integrity because abortion has nothing to do with gun control or any of the other issues the parties are divided on. These stereo types simply do not fit the people as individuals. In 1776 America declared it’s independence. When will the people do the same? Be real, be independent. Pay attention, Democracy is rising.