Public Financing of campaigns - what, you can't persuade people to give you money? - Granite Grok

Public Financing of campaigns – what, you can’t persuade people to give you money?

Just like Steve, I’m going back through “posts that never were”; drafts that either never got finished or I forgot to punch PUBLISH.  This was was back from Jan 1, 2008 and given the recent “Campaign Funding Walk” that just occurred, this old bag of words is like some of my clothes now (sigh) – old enough to be current again.  Except this topic never seems to leave us – Liberals always:

  • Wish to restrict political speech, especially other peoples’
  • Wish to have control over other peoples’ money to carry out their ideas of “what a fix is”

For me, I think Jefferson’s words should be of primary import – do NOT make me subsidize the words of Democrats.  I also draw your attention to Brad Cook’s name, given that he was rumored to be running as a Republican, – and Party designation.

Once again, Democrats seeking to have Government do more and more with our money – if someone, Democrat or Republican or otherwise, can’t raise enough money to run, doesn’t that say something about their ideas that people do not like?  Or that their approach to running is wrong?  Either should be (and are) sufficient for disqualification or a loss in the race.

To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

-Thomas Jefferson

So, how did fundraising go this cycle at the national level:  

The Billion-Dollar Democratic Machine

Total fundraising for the Obama campaign and the DNC last cycle: $999 million.

Total fundraising for the McCain campaign and the RNC: $733 million.

This doesn’t even get into the 527 spending.

(H/T: The Campaign Spot)

Result – Barack Obama raised pretty much $1 Billion dollars with no public funding….so why do NH based Democrat chuckleheads think we need it?

I have never understood the idea of public financing of campaigns – it smacks of government paying for more government.  Although I have been politically aware AND active for just a couple of years, I do know that money is the mother’s milk of campaigning. I would find it hard to ask for money to run for elected office, yet that is what has to be done in order to win and to be able to hold office.

There certainly is an inequality between people on how well they can formulate, articulate, and use a message to ask for money. I think this is again, why Liberals want to have government finance – it isn’t to level the playing field to make it “fair”; rather, it once again, to have people dependent on government for their needs.

Anyways, forcing me to give money to government so as to make it easier to allow someone to run whose ideas run 100% counter to my ideas as to the proper role of government…

PolitickerNH is reporting that I may well have to support people with my money (i.e., tax monies that would otherwise be used elsewhere) to support the next dumb idea from the Democrats has been cracked out of its shell:

A commission established to study the possibility of publicly funding campaigns in New Hampshire has officially released its report.

The commission has been in place since August and was tasked with finding if it is possible for the state to fund a system that would finance state campaigns using taxpayer money.

The commission, officially called the Commission to Study the Feasibility of Public Funding of State Election Campaigns, recommended that candidates running for state senate, governor or executive council can receive matching funds from the state if the candidate reaches a threshold in the number of donations they receive from contributors. The commission also said the system would cost $6.5 million a year.

Right!  We already have a state budget problem of over 15% of revenue and these clowns want to spend more.

Er, what about saying “not so much right now – not recommended”.  But no, let’s just add on a few more taxes and fees!

To fund the system the commission said the state should offer a special “first in the nation” license plate, include a voluntary check-off box on tax returns, increase fees for lobbyists, criminal fines and the car rental tax. The commission also said the state could bring back the “Legacies and Succession Tax,” also known as the estates tax and institute a tax on plastic grocery bags to help fund the system.

The commission suggested the state should establish a pilot program that would be tried in six state senate districts for three elections that would cost an estimated $725,000.

In addition to outlining a public finance system, the commission recommended that the state establish an earlier state primary, restrict campaign expenditures and lengthen the term of state senators, executive councilors and the governor from two to four years.

“In conclusion, the Commission’s work confirmed members’ belief that a system of public funding of state election campaigns is in the best interest of New Hampshire,” the commission report read in part. “Such a system is consistent with New Hampshire political traditions of citizen involvement in elections and government.”

So, let’s look at the actual report – the report can be found here and was authored by these chuckleheads:

Appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives

    * John Rauh (D-New Castle)
* Jim Rubens (R-Etna)

Appointed by the President of the Senate

    * Stuart Comstock-Gay (D-Concord)
* Abigail Abrash Walton (D-Keene)

Appointed by the Governor

    * Brad Cook (D-Manchester) * Commission Chair
* Martin Honigberg (D-Concord)

Appointed by the Secretary of State

    * Barbara Hilton (D-Portsmouth)

Notice the “stacking” of the politics? So, what does really want?   The New Hampshire Public Elections Commission site talks about little, but does have a link to the actual report.

 

>