Title: Ron Paul and Matching Funds Source:
Rockwell URL Source:[None] Published:Oct 1, 2007 Author:walter block Post Date:2007-10-01 10:40:31 by ghostdogtxn Keywords:None Views:376 Comments:15
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)‡
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)‡
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)‡
I have mixed feelings on this one: most other candidates take corporate donations, PAC donations, etc. in unlimited amounts, while Dr.Paul's supporters are limited to $2300/person. Why should we be restricted on the amount we can give to our candidates by a whacked law that was designed to favor the incumbents?
He could justify taking the funds based on the fact that his supporters are limited in the amount of money that they can donate to the campaign, and that the matching funds are just money that has been extracted from his supporters.
Are not the matching fund dollars the ones which the individual taxpayers can mark off on their Form 1040 as being designated for the presidential matching fund program.......and not TAX dollars.
The taxpayer has to indicate a dollar or two of their refund to go to this special pot of money?
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)‡
The idea was revived by Senator John Pastore as an amendment to the Senate's consideration of the Revenue Act of 1971. Pastore's plan survived four days of floor debate, strong Republican opposition, and a veto threat by President Richard Nixon, which was avoided by delaying implementation until the 1976 elections. The Revenue Act of 1971 (P.L. 92-178) established today's Presidential Election Campaign Fund-a separate account in the U.S. Treasury to fund (on a voluntary basis) general election campaigns of presidential candidates who met the qualifying conditions and who agreed to abide by the national spending limit. Payments were to be made directly to candidates (unlike the 1966 Act), with full grants equal to the spending limit for major party candidates, limited grants to minor party candidates based on prior electoral strength, and post-election payments to new party candidates based on votes in that election. The Act set up a voluntary dollar checkoff on federal tax returns ($2 on joint returns), beginning with the 1972 tax year.
That is my opinion as well. [edit]: This was found from a google search.
I recall talking with my tax accountant a good number of years ago regarding this; his opinion was why give them money to get elected to do a job that we are not happy with them doing.
Hence, I do not 'x' off.
I read something a while back that indicated that the number of people checking off has dropped dramatically over time.
What gravels my ass is to use any gubmint sources to fund the conventions. And worse yet is to allow corporate sponsors to fund them or debates either.
The political whores just can't get enough thievery.
Notice that the split of funds for 'third party' or 'minor party' candidates is something like 2/3 of what the big two get. Talk about a lock on the marketplace of legislative and executive privileges.