| Eliminating Taxpayer Financing Of Presidential Elections |
January 26, 2011 |
|
Rush Holt, D-NJ
|
|
"Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 359, a bill that would terminate the public financing system for presidential election campaigns. The vast majority of Americans oppose the damage done to the integrity of the electoral system by the Citizens United v. FEC, which opened the floodgates for corporate spending in elections. According to a Washington Post poll, 80 percent of Americans oppose the ruling, with little difference reflected by party affiliation (85 percent of Democrats oppose it, 76 percent of Republicans, and 81 percent of independents). Yet, inexplicably, the majority is celebrating the one-year anniversary of that disastrous and poorly-reasoned decision by offering a bill that would make that damage vastly worse."
|
|
| Eliminating Taxpayer Financing Of Presidential Elections |
January 26, 2011 |
|
Peter Roskam, R-IL
|
|
"Also, I would just like to bring your attention to that same argument, and that is, a “Dear colleague” that was sent criticizing this bill said basically the same thing: By creating a viable alternative to private fundraising, the public financing system was designed to level the electoral playing field and ensure that candidates remain accountable to voters, not special interests."
|
|
| Providing For Consideration Of H.R. 359, Eliminating Taxpayer Financing Of Presidential Elections |
January 26, 2011 |
|
Virginia Foxx, R-NC
|
|
"“In short, it provides taxpayer subsidies to political candidates and parties. Since 2000, some major candidates have chosen to forgo public financing. While some have argued that providing even more taxpayer funding for this program might entice more candidates to participate, eliminating the program altogether … would require candidates and political parties to rely on private donations rather than tax dollars. The amount of funding for the public financing system is determined by checkoffs on income tax returns, and taxpayer participation via the checkoffs has declined,” Mr. Speaker, “from 28.7 percent in 1980 to 7.3 percent in 2009.” And that’s the end of the quote from the Web site."
|
|
| Statements On Introduced Bills And Joint Resolutions |
July 30, 2010 |
|
Russ Feingold, D-WI
|
|
"This bill also addresses what some have called the “gap” between the primary and general election seasons. Presumptive presidential nominees have emerged earlier in the election year over the life of the public financing system. This has led to some nominees being essentially out of money between the time that they nail down the nomination and the convention where they are formally nominated and become eligible for the general election grant. For a few cycles, soft money raised by the parties filled in that gap, but the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 fortunately has now closed that loophole. By eliminating spending limits in the primaries, the bill makes sure that candidates can continue raising and spending the money they need to remain competitive. In addition, the political parties will be permitted to spend up to $50 million coordinated with their candidates, an increase from the current limit of $15 million."
|
|
|
|