1. Frankly, taxpayers should not be compelled to finance elections at any level.

2. The existing program does not compel anyone. The only money that goes into the presidential public funding program is from taxpayers who check the box on the federal tax form, asking that $3 go into the fund.

3. I believe that 3 dollars doesn’t affect your return, if you check the box so we all pay for this fund, in a round about way.

4. Bob, how else are we going to take “backroom” politics and “party bosses” out of politics unless we have a public financed system? We spend billions on wasted foreign policy programs, that don’t bring one ounce of respect from these foreign powers, and you moan over spending a few millions to make our elections reflective of the voters. Yep, Americans get the kind of government they won’t invest in! I’m beginning to have less and less sympathy for them.

5. You really don’t get the oranges and beer metaphor, do you Richard?

   You could make the case that taxpayers are not compelled to support the matching presidential funding if, AND ONLY IF, when they checked that $3 box their taxes were increased by three dollars. But that’s not the case, is it? Rather, three dollars which would have gone into the Treasury’s general account is diverted to the presidential campaign finance fund. And THAT means that ALL taxpayers are COMPELLED to support the process.

   You’re on record as supporting public financing of elections, Richard. But you can’t seem to bring yourself to support limitations on contributions to political campaigns (and please, let’s not cavil again over the ridiculous notion that campaigns don’t benefit from “non coordinated” contributions to SuperPACS – they do – of course they do). And why do candidates now turn down matching funds? Because of the enormous amount of money they would be walking away from if they did!

   I’m beginning to think that every position you’ve taken on campaign finance and its reform is driven by the hope that a third party candidate can legally find a sugar daddy.

   Thankfully, the taxpayers seem to get it. When the presidential funding was rolled out, about 20% of taxpayers checked the box. We’re down to about 6% now.

   Make it 0%, and good riddance. Make public financing the only source of campaign funding and I’m for it. If it’s just another source, it’s another contributor to the horrendous, corrupt system that’s killing this country – politically, economically and socially.

6. This could further damage alternative parties. The duopoly tends not to have any interest in public funding limits but the alternative parties need that money.

7. Then let’s put members of third parties on something resembling a level playing field and RESTRICT contributions to campaigns and political parties, and eliminate Super PACS. There are multitudinous ways in which we restrict free speech, so even if one accepts the flawed premise that money is speech, we can restrict that expression of “speech,” too.

   How many third party candidates have been elected by running a campaign which was publicly financed? And if anyone wants to hazard an estimate, please express it in the form of a percentage of ALL candidates who have been elected, from any party, and however their campaigns were financed. I have a decimal point you can borrow. You fill in the zeros to the right of it.

8. What part of the USA Const permits ANY public funding for Prez robot party hacks ???

   More of the that EVIL LAWLESS MORON stuff or what ???

   Will Obama be approving ANY *party hack* bills in 2015-2017 ???

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