Eliminating Public Funding for Elections
0
So the Republican-controlled House passed a bill eliminating public funding for elections.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/01/26/house-passes-bill-eliminating-public-financing/
On the surface, it seems like saving money would be a good thing, but of course, there is the one huge drawback to this:
What do you guys think about this? I agree that it is a bad idea, and that the Presidential Election Campaign Fund should remain. This fund is the closest people can get to telling the government how to spend their money, and contribution to the fund is completely voluntary--if you don't check the box on your income tax forms, you don't put anything in this fund. It's not like we are taking away from other parts of the budget to fund this. And this whole saving money thing? I call bullshit. Look at the numbers:
2011 deficit: $1,480 billion
2011 cost of the Bush tax cuts: $390 billion
(source for the two above figures)
Potential savings of eliminating public financing: $0.062 billion
That's a drop in the bucket compared to the cost of extending the Bush tax cuts, which the Republicans would not have extended if they were truly concerned about decreasing the deficit.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/01/26/house-passes-bill-eliminating-public-financing/
The House bill, sponsored by Oklahoma Republican Rep Tom Cole, would eliminate the Presidential Election Campaign Fund. This voluntary public financing system was created in 1976, in the wake of the Watergate scandal, to lessen the influence of corporate money on campaigns. Taxpayers can check off a box on their tax returns directing $3 in federal money to the program. Candidates who apply for public financing must adhere to overall spending limits.
According to an estimate from the Congressional Budget Office released Monday, ending the program would save $617 million over the next ten years. Money currently in the fund–$195 million–cannot be used for other purposes, so zeroing out the program would transfer those dollars to the Treasury.
According to an estimate from the Congressional Budget Office released Monday, ending the program would save $617 million over the next ten years. Money currently in the fund–$195 million–cannot be used for other purposes, so zeroing out the program would transfer those dollars to the Treasury.
On the surface, it seems like saving money would be a good thing, but of course, there is the one huge drawback to this:
Democrats argued that system should be reformed, not repealed, because public financing puts candidate from both parties on a more even playing field. They maintain that ending the program would force candidates to depend on private sources to finance their campaigns, giving corporations more power in the political arena.
...
Public Finance Action Fund, a non partisan group pushing for public financing at the state and federal levels, released a statement opposing GOP efforts to dismantle the system. "These efforts are not about saving taxpayer money, they are about giving corporate donors even more access than they enjoy today. We hope these measures don't advance any further."
...
Public Finance Action Fund, a non partisan group pushing for public financing at the state and federal levels, released a statement opposing GOP efforts to dismantle the system. "These efforts are not about saving taxpayer money, they are about giving corporate donors even more access than they enjoy today. We hope these measures don't advance any further."
What do you guys think about this? I agree that it is a bad idea, and that the Presidential Election Campaign Fund should remain. This fund is the closest people can get to telling the government how to spend their money, and contribution to the fund is completely voluntary--if you don't check the box on your income tax forms, you don't put anything in this fund. It's not like we are taking away from other parts of the budget to fund this. And this whole saving money thing? I call bullshit. Look at the numbers:
2011 deficit: $1,480 billion
2011 cost of the Bush tax cuts: $390 billion
(source for the two above figures)
Potential savings of eliminating public financing: $0.062 billion
That's a drop in the bucket compared to the cost of extending the Bush tax cuts, which the Republicans would not have extended if they were truly concerned about decreasing the deficit.