Want to be President? US Can Help!
If you like to travel and ask strangers for money, I have a great opportunity for you! Yeshiva "mshulach "(fundraiser)? NO! Candidate for your party's 2008 presidential nomination! And the best news is that if you can raise a measly $100,000 in 20 states (1), the US Presidential Election Campaign Fund (PECF) will pay up to half the cost of your campaign!
Liberals have argued for years that replacing special interest money with taxpayer funds would reduce political corruption. In the wake of the Watergate Scandal, Congress passed the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA), which authorizes every taxpayer to designate $3 of his or her annual federal income tax for the PECF, which provides matching funds for presidential primary campaigns and about $85 million for each major party's general election fund.
You don't have to be a governor or senator to qualify, you just have to be born in the US and at least 35 years old. You must also agree to abide by federal campaign spending limits, such as not spending more than $50,000 of your own money on your campaign. Anyone with a decent website should be able to "schnor" the hundred grand required to qualify. (After all, the Howard Dean website garnered about $25 million before the Iowa Primal Scream in 2004).
You might feel you have no chance of beating out popular candidates like Hilary Clinton or Rudy Giuliani for the major party nominations. No problem: PECF will fund your campaign for any party's nomination----Green, Reform, Socialist, or even a new party of your own!
If you think I am kidding, here is a list of actual federal funds received by presidential candidates: (2)
Lenora Fulani, New Alliance Party, $3.5 million (1984-92 )
Lyndon LaRouche, US Labor Party, $4.7 million (1976-88 )
Jesse Jackson , Democratic, $7 million (1984-88)
Patrick Buchanan, Reform, $16.6 million (2000)
Dennis Kucinich, Democratic, $ 2.9 million (2004)
Could you be as good a President as any of these people? Of this group, only Kucinich, a Congressman from Cleveland, has ever been elected anything!
So far American taxpayers have spent over $1.3 billion to fund campaigns over the past 30 years. Although the figures shown above may seem generous, the most successful campaign fundraisers are actually rejecting government financing for 2008 because the spending limits required by FECA are TOO LOW!
Since the Supreme Court ruled in 1976 (3) that mandatory limits on political spending are unconstitutional, we now have a system in which millions of public dollars are wasted on fringe candidates, while serious contenders are free to raise hundreds of millions from those seeking access to the next President. We have thus combined the worst aspects of public financing (big money down the drain) with the worst aspects of private financing (selling of political influence).
There are signs that American taxpayers are turning against the PECF: the percentage of people checking-off the box to contribute to it has declined from 27% in 1980 to only 9% in 2004. (2)Although I have run for office myself and regularly contribute to campaigns, I never check this box for one simple reason: I want to choose who gets my contribution! Since I am against most of the candidates who qualify for the PECF matching funds, why should I want my tax money to go to their campaigns?
FECA has made campaigns more expensive, subsidized weirdo candidates and kept losers in the race long after they should have quit. Checking-off the box on your 1040 return will not increase your tax bill, but it will increase the federal deficit by $3. So let's not do it.
Trouble is that if no one checked-off the PECF box, you would have to pay for your presidential campaign yourself, if you still wanted to run.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) The candidate must raise at least $5,000 in each of 20 states, and only contributions of $250 or less qualify for this threshold or for matching funds.
(2)See website OpenSecrets.org.
(3) Buckley vs Valeo (424 US 1, 1976)
Liberals have argued for years that replacing special interest money with taxpayer funds would reduce political corruption. In the wake of the Watergate Scandal, Congress passed the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA), which authorizes every taxpayer to designate $3 of his or her annual federal income tax for the PECF, which provides matching funds for presidential primary campaigns and about $85 million for each major party's general election fund.
You don't have to be a governor or senator to qualify, you just have to be born in the US and at least 35 years old. You must also agree to abide by federal campaign spending limits, such as not spending more than $50,000 of your own money on your campaign. Anyone with a decent website should be able to "schnor" the hundred grand required to qualify. (After all, the Howard Dean website garnered about $25 million before the Iowa Primal Scream in 2004).
You might feel you have no chance of beating out popular candidates like Hilary Clinton or Rudy Giuliani for the major party nominations. No problem: PECF will fund your campaign for any party's nomination----Green, Reform, Socialist, or even a new party of your own!
If you think I am kidding, here is a list of actual federal funds received by presidential candidates: (2)
Lenora Fulani, New Alliance Party, $3.5 million (1984-92 )
Lyndon LaRouche, US Labor Party, $4.7 million (1976-88 )
Jesse Jackson , Democratic, $7 million (1984-88)
Patrick Buchanan, Reform, $16.6 million (2000)
Dennis Kucinich, Democratic, $ 2.9 million (2004)
Could you be as good a President as any of these people? Of this group, only Kucinich, a Congressman from Cleveland, has ever been elected anything!
So far American taxpayers have spent over $1.3 billion to fund campaigns over the past 30 years. Although the figures shown above may seem generous, the most successful campaign fundraisers are actually rejecting government financing for 2008 because the spending limits required by FECA are TOO LOW!
Since the Supreme Court ruled in 1976 (3) that mandatory limits on political spending are unconstitutional, we now have a system in which millions of public dollars are wasted on fringe candidates, while serious contenders are free to raise hundreds of millions from those seeking access to the next President. We have thus combined the worst aspects of public financing (big money down the drain) with the worst aspects of private financing (selling of political influence).
There are signs that American taxpayers are turning against the PECF: the percentage of people checking-off the box to contribute to it has declined from 27% in 1980 to only 9% in 2004. (2)Although I have run for office myself and regularly contribute to campaigns, I never check this box for one simple reason: I want to choose who gets my contribution! Since I am against most of the candidates who qualify for the PECF matching funds, why should I want my tax money to go to their campaigns?
FECA has made campaigns more expensive, subsidized weirdo candidates and kept losers in the race long after they should have quit. Checking-off the box on your 1040 return will not increase your tax bill, but it will increase the federal deficit by $3. So let's not do it.
Trouble is that if no one checked-off the PECF box, you would have to pay for your presidential campaign yourself, if you still wanted to run.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) The candidate must raise at least $5,000 in each of 20 states, and only contributions of $250 or less qualify for this threshold or for matching funds.
(2)See website OpenSecrets.org.
(3) Buckley vs Valeo (424 US 1, 1976)
posted by Gerald S Glazer at 9:00 AM
3 Comments:
All you write is true, but the alternative may be worse. Without government funding of candidates only the very rich would run and then we would only have Rockefellers and Kennedys as presidents. Of course when one looks at the record of the very rich, maybe the alternative is not so bad.
All you write is true, but the alternative may be worse. Without government funding of candidates only the very rich would run and then we would only have Rockefellers and Kennedys as presidents. Of course when one looks at the record of the very rich, maybe the alternative is not so bad.
I am Searching for this article. Its really Great HelpFull Thanks
PreOwnedphones X
PreOwnedphones X
PreOwnedphones X
PreOwnedphones Xs
PreOwnedphones X
PreOwnedphones X
Post a Comment
<< Home