House passes bill to end public funding of campaigns

C

Cancel 2018. 3

<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
House passes bill to end public funding of campaigns

The U.S. House passed a bill today to end public financing of presidential campaigns, but the bid to kill a system considered outdated by some Republicans could end there.

The vote was 239-160. Ten Democrats supported the measure and one Republican voted no

The Obama administration is "strongly opposed" to the bill and wants to see public financing for presidential campaigns "fixed rather than dismantled."

Rep. Tom Cole, R-Okla., sponsor of the measure says the Watergate-era program of taxpayers helping to pay for presidential campaigns is "obsolete."

Instead, the bill seeks to have presidential candidates rely on private funds for their campaigns and transfer the remaining balance in the Presidential Election Campaign Fund to the Treasury to help pay off debt.

http://content.usatoday.com/communi...al-campaign-financing-/1?loc=interstitialskip

i don't understand why the gop is even paying attention to this right now....its silly. its merely 75 million dollars....who cares....

now, if you want to CAP campaign spending, then we might be onto something, but this...i don't get it, doesn't even make sense, especially in light of mccain v. obama
 
I'll say it again, DY's solution to campaign finance:

1. Lower the corporate tax rate to zero.
2. Allow only taxpayers who are registered voters to contribute up to a set amount, indexed to inflation.
3. No minimum contribution for reporting purposes.
 
Yurt said:
nonsense.




so the poor can't vote?



so soros can buy the election?
Click to expand...

1. Why? Would the sight of new corporate headquarters moving into your town offend you?
2. The poor don't pay a lot of taxes, but they do pay taxes. Stop being retarded.
3. You read it wrong. Soros skirted the current donation rules by contributing thousands of individual payments just under the reporting minimum. This will prevent him from doing so again.
 
QUOTE=Damn Yankee;765325]1. Why? Would the sight of new corporate headquarters moving into your town offend you?
Click to expand...

never said that....

2. The poor don't pay a lot of taxes, but they do pay taxes. Stop being retarded.
Click to expand...

so they should have less representation?


3. You read it wrong. Soros skirted the current donation rules by contributing thousands of individual payments just under the reporting minimum. This will prevent him from doing so again.
Click to expand...

you stated it wrong - No minimum contribution for reporting purposes, that would make soros happy
 
Yurt said:
never said that....






you stated it wrong - No minimum contribution for reporting purposes, that would make soros happy
Click to expand...

anonymous cash for campaigns is one of the most corrupting things for a democracy

the one man (citizen) one vote does not work when the rich and corporations can pour large amounts of anonymous money into the system

so they should have less representation?
 
Yurt said:
never said that....



so they should have less representation?




you stated it wrong - No minimum contribution for reporting purposes, that would make soros happy
Click to expand...

1. Yet that would be the effect.
2. One person one vote. What do you find offensive about that?
3. Minimum means minimum, not maximum.
 
Damn Yankee said:
In the US prior to 1909.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/02corate.pdf

Table starts on page 4.
Click to expand...
The Guilded Age. Great for corporations, horrible for small farmers and workers. It was as close as we ever got to rich corporatists running the US. While the economy grew rapidly working conditions were horrible. People worked 10 and 12 hour days with little or no breaks, the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire was a direct result of guilded age policies. Read The Jungle if you wanna know how good that era was.
 
Socrtease said:
The Guilded Age. Great for corporations, horrible for small farmers and workers. It was as close as we ever got to rich corporatists running the US. While the economy grew rapidly working conditions were horrible. People worked 10 and 12 hour days with little or no breaks, the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire was a direct result of guilded age policies. Read The Jungle if you wanna know how good that era was.
Click to expand...
Don't we have laws to protect workers now?
 
Socrtease said:
The Guilded Age. Great for corporations, horrible for small farmers and workers. It was as close as we ever got to rich corporatists running the US. While the economy grew rapidly working conditions were horrible. People worked 10 and 12 hour days with little or no breaks, the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire was a direct result of guilded age policies. Read The Jungle if you wanna know how good that era was.
Click to expand...

The closest we got is right now. and we're heading closer going forward.
 
Yurt said:
i don't understand why the gop is even paying attention to this right now....its silly. its merely 75 million dollars....who cares....

now, if you want to CAP campaign spending, then we might be onto something, but this...i don't get it, doesn't even make sense, especially in light of mccain v. obama
Click to expand...

you really don't see why they are doing this?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top