As more and more candidates are skipping public funding

question everything

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Feb-09-07 01:54 AM
Original message

As more and more candidates are skipping public funding

shall I then, not check that box on my income tax return?

Have been checking them from as long as I remember filing income tax returns..

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

illinoisprogressive

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Feb-09-07 01:57 AM
Response to Original message

1. Naw. Just give to the candidate of your choice directly.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

crispini

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Feb-09-07 01:58 AM
Response to Original message

2. I would say, please continue to do so

and perhaps we can get the public funding $$ increased so that people will NOT turn down public funding.

I for one don't wish our candidates to be beholden to special interests. I wish we could figure out a better way to do this.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Selatius

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Feb-09-07 02:03 AM
Response to Original message

3. There's no point to checking the box if the frontrunners ignore it entirely.

The public financing mechanism that currently exists is simply broken.

No, you pay the candidate directly. Unfortunately, you probably don't have the kind of buying power Mr. CEO and his gang of executives and managers has.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

question everything

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Feb-10-07 12:48 AM
Response to Reply #3

10. You have a point here

Perhaps, if more of us will not check it this will force Congress to take another look at how we buy a president. It seems that $100 million is the minimum now.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Mind_your_head

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Feb-09-07 02:07 AM
Response to Original message

4. I NEVER checked it.....because I NEVER heard/knew where

that money ever went/was going. Perhaps it was put on a pallet to Bagdad? Perhaps it was funding black ops in GodKnowsWhereistan.

No accountability for approx. $300 million (give or take).....nah, 'they' aren't gonna get MY $1 (it's only $1 apiece - but when that's given (checked box) by MILLIONS of tax payers EVERY YEAR!!!) Thatsa lotta dough!!! Who's pocket does that go to? And is there ever a reckoning of how many taxpayers actually CHECKED that box every year???

A sucker is born every minute, they say.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

snowbear

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Feb-09-07 02:10 AM
Response to Original message

5. Is McCain himself going to abide by the McCain-Feingold Law?

Don't tell me that the man who cofounded it... is bypassig it?

Does anyone know?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Jai4WKC08

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Feb-09-07 10:26 AM
Response to Reply #5

9. No, McCain has already turned it down

I can't give you a link, but I know I heard it on the news. I remember thinking at the time how ironic (but not surprising) it is that he would skip out on his own legislation. Probably would have been either Washington Journal or MSNBC, since that's what I mostly listen to.

To be fair, I don't think any serious candidate can afford not to opt out of public financing. It's just not possible to compete within the public limits.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

snowbear

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Feb-10-07 10:49 PM
Response to Reply #9

11. Thanks Jai... Geez, McCain is such a....

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Greyhound

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Feb-09-07 06:23 AM
Response to Original message

6. If I'm not mistaken, turning down public funding means that they can keep

who donates to their campaign a secret, no? If so, I'm very uncomfortable with that.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

salin

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Feb-09-07 06:56 AM
Response to Reply #6

7. contributions to candidates are always transparent.

Campaigns have to turn in regular reports.

Turning down public funding means that the candidate has no spending limits (there is a cap to the total $ one can get from public funding) - so it means that whatever the candidate can raise (and then some) can be spent on the campaign. It is how we get to higher and higher rates of campaign spending and a need for the other candidates to keep up to even be competitive.

The turning down the funding is a bad sign.

I wish we could require public funding (and thus control spending and fundraising).

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Greyhound

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Feb-09-07 07:07 AM
Response to Reply #7

8. Ah, thank you for the information. I agree and would go so far as to outlaw

all private funding of political campaigns, just give everybody the same amount, require television and radio stations to commit so many hours to each campaign and limit the time of the campaigns (90 days seems adequate to me).

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)

Thu May 02nd 2024, 08:00 AM
Response to Original message

Advertisements [?]

Top

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.