House votes to end subsidies for candidates

I have been calling for this since the '90's. I do not think this will influence any party towards special interest more than they are already influenced. There is much more needed. Right now, a political party gets huge advantages over 3rd party candidates. As a result, if we could do more to eliminate all the benefits of the current 2 parties then a 3rd party candidate would have a better chance.

Yet, my next proposal for them is to tax all campaign contributions after $200,000.00 at the corporate tax rate. It is suspected that Obama will raise $1 Billion. That would be $350,000,000.00 from just Obama. If two candidates raise that amount of money, we could raise $700,000,000.00. This does not include the primaries nor other races across the United States to include close Senate races. I doubt politicians will vote to tax their own campaigns, but I think no citizen will be hurt by such a tax, only politicians...

 

They cannot be driven more firmly into the arms of persons and entities that are already in a seemingly "one-flesh" relationship.

In other words, the candidates are already taking large subsidies from special interest groups. The alignment of those groups for certain party members is a very telling story. Who gives money to whom goes a long way in deciphering the way any given vote may proceed later in the elected official's actions once in power.

Here is a link to the top 200 givers for political campaigns.

Clicking on the link of each giver will pull up a profile sheet showing to whom they gave the funds.

#1 is the National Educational Association (teachers union) who gave $56.2 million during the 2008 election.

Of that $56.2 million, the funds were distributed as follows:

Contributions to Parties
Total: $6,058,642
Dems: $5,611,707
Repubs: $446,935
Other: $0
# Cmtes: 186
Total: $348,465
Dems: $271,415
Repubs: $77,050
Other: N/A
# Cmtes: 43
Total: $5,710,177
Dems: $5,340,292
Repubs: $369,885
Other: $0
# Cmtes: 143

Contributions to Candidates
Total: $13,602,635
Dems: $11,260,043
Repubs: $1,968,847
Other: $367,745
Winners: $9,871,824
Losers: $2,977,916
# Cands: 3,694
Total: $2,213,032
Dems: $2,049,732
Repubs: $157,300
Other: N/A
Winners: $1,777,412
Losers: $288,835
# Cands: 374
Total: $11,389,603
Dems: $9,210,311
Repubs: $1,811,547
Other: $367,745
Winners: $8,094,412
Losers: $2,689,081
# Cands: 3,320

It is clear that the NEA HEAVILY supports Democrats. Imagine that...

The #2 donor is a band of Indians, who gave most heavily to Democrats.

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/all_summary.php?id=D000023641&nid=4103

#3 is "Gaming" (i.e., gambling), which also gave most heavily to Democrats.

One must go to #7 on the list (Realtors) before one finds contributions from any donor to the Republican Party exceed those of the Democrat Party (and in this case, they are close to matching compared to the discrepancies in the top 6 spots).

 

This is a start, though it will likely affect minority (not just ethnic here) candidates more than anything.

We now need them to pass a hard campaign contributions law. We need to end soft money contributions. Money doesn't equal speech. The founders of this country would roll over in their graves if they saw DC today.

We need to end lobbyist contact with elected officials. We need the strongest campaign finances laws in the world. If we're gonna fix this thing Congress has to be reformed.

We also need a balanced budget amendment that removes Congressional oversight on their pay and benefits. Congress should be part time, salaries pegged to the average income of all 50 states, and term limited.

Anything short of wholesale change is a half-measure and failure.

 

There are two ways to eliminate soft money. First, by doing away with the laws that caused people to utilize soft money or by more government intervention that will probably see the problem shift rather than solve the problem. The problem with the law that started soft money is that it also made it more difficult for a 3rd party candidate to be competitive.

Thus, I would eliminate the cap on hard campaign contributions to candidates but keep intact the act which requires reporting. Also, I would eliminate the cap on businesses and special interest groups from contributing to candidates. This would also make belonging to a political party not as important as it is now. As well, it would make everything transparent. Finally, it would get the government out of a needless "cure" that only caused more problems than it solved. Mix that with the tax on campaign contributions over $200,000.00, then you will have a huge tax to go along with it. It would also make a 3rd party candidate with a few heavy backers to be able to get his name out and possibly allow for the forming of another national political party.

Oh, and I also support making Senators be appointed by the state legislative branch. This will make the power of our Senate be derived from the states. Yet, I doubt this will happen. This would eliminate the major amount of money going to state campaigns for senate. Yes, they will be less answerable to the people but more answerable to the states.

 

The 1040 form check off is a de facto tax cut which permits people to choose where their tax money will be spent. Isn't this what the Republican platform demands?

 

Which is the way our Constitution was originally written.