U.S. House Expected to Vote Next Week on Abolishing Public Funding for Presidential Candidates

On January 20, the leadership of the House of Representatives said there will be a floor vote on January 26 on whether to abolish the public funding program for presidential candidates. See this story. The House leadership says it will bring bills to the floor every week to abolish some particular type of federal spending, and this is the first one in the series. There is apparently no bill introduced yet to take this action, and no committee hearings are expected. Thanks to Rick Hasen for this news.

The public funding program has been in place ever since 1976. It provides nondiscriminatory public funding in the primary season to any presidential candidate, seeking the nomination of any party (no matter how small), if that candidate raises at least $5,000 from each of 20 states. It also provides general election funding to the presidential campaigns of parties that polled at least 5% of the vote in the previous presidential election. If any new party, or any independent presidential candidate, polls 5% or more, then that campaign gets general election funding after the election is over. The only general election funding received by candidates and parties other than the Democratic and Republican Parties has been after the 1980 election, for John Anderson; and for the Reform Party, after the 1996 election and before the 2000 general election.


Comments

U.S. House Expected to Vote Next Week on Abolishing Public Funding for Presidential Candidates — No Comments

  1. Lots of candidates qualified for primary season matching funds. I didn’t list them; I just listed the ones who got general election money.

    Minor party presidential candidates who got primary season matching funds included Sonia Johnson of the Citizens Party in 1984, Lenora Fulani of the New Alliance Party in both 1988 and 1992 (she got over $1,000,000 in 1992), Ralph Nader in 2000, 2004, and 2008, John Hagelin in 1992, 1996, and 2000, and Pat Buchanan in 2000.

    Although Harry Browne received enough contributions to theoretically have qualified for primary season matching funds, he never turned in the paperwork and got audited, so we can’t be positive he would have qualified. The process is grueling. The FEC wants documentation of every little thing.

  2. How many armies of accountants and lawyers are needed regarding any stuff from the govt ???

    Good for stimulating the economy ???

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.