Time to End the Presidential Funding Tax Checkoff?

Taxpayers can check a box on federal tax forms to designate $3 toward presidential campaigns.

By U.S. News Staff

April 8, 2011 RSS Feed Print

Comment (5)
Tweet

Federal tax forms have a box taxpayers can check to designate $3 toward a public fund for financing presidential campaigns. Critics see better uses for the tax dollars. But while the program needs updating, advocates say, it is still a bulwark against corruption.
Edited by Robert Schlesinger

Yes

Tom Cole
Oklahoma Republican representative and member of the House Appropriations Committee

House Appropriations Committee The federal government is heading for bankruptcy unless we make some tough budget cuts quickly. Our national debt stands at a staggering $14 trillion, and the Congressional Budget Office projects it will reach 77 percent of Gross Domestic Product in just 10 years. Yet every four years, the government sponsors an extravagant party...

No

Fred Wertheimer
President of Democracy 21, a nonpartisan group supporting campaign finance reform

John Gardner, the founder of Common Cause and the modern campaign finance reform movement in the early 1970s, wrote, "The citizen can bring our political and governmental institutions back to life, make them responsive and accountable, and keep them honest. No one else can." In 1974, citizens spoke loud and clear...

Reader Comments Read all comments (5)

Add Your Thoughts Comment Name State Email

Please enter the two words below into the text field underneath the image.

Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

I think there should be a limit on on how much a person can spend on a campaign. It should not start 2 years before the election either. I think 3 months is enough time to campaign. By the time elections roll around I am sick of hearing all the rhetoric and have already decided who will receive my vote. I don't need advertising at the polling sites either. If they eliminated the paper that shuffles thru the post office, it would save a lot of money. Each candidate would get the same amount of time on the public airways and no corporations or businesses would be allowed to contribute at all. Contributions from individuals would be public record and each campaign should be run by a person not of that political party. If a member of the white house or congress is running, they should not shirk their present duties, in other word be present for voting on issues, not off running around carousing with their campaign workers, eating and drinking off of the contributions.

Carol Gacioch RN RHIA of NC 1:26PM April 20, 2011

I hear politicians and pundits complaining endlessly about the corrupting influence of money in politics and yet all anyone can seem to do is come up with some other law or rule governing disclosure, which can be worked around. I don't agree with Obama on many things but his disagreement with the Supreme Court regarding corporte entities was spot on. What was disingenuous about this is that he was attacking those whom he considers contribute and inordinate amount of money to Republican causes while ignoring unions and others who contribute to Democrats, so I'm not so sure his stand was principled. If money is the corrupting influence, then why not take the obvious step of removing it from the process by full public financing? The airwaves are public property leased to broadcasters so why can't we ensure that they are forced to give back by "donating" equal airtime to political ads from all competitors. I'm not sure how much complete and true public financing would cost, but I think that most Americans would agree that even 5 billion a year would be a small price to pay to get our democracy back. I think that the argument that denying a corporation or special interest the right to contribute to a candidate of their choice robs them of free speech rights is pure hogwash. What is undeniably true, though, is that those who contribute more to a campaign have more access to candidates than I do, and that stifles my right to be heard. If everyone is mandated to contribute $10 annually to a centralized campaign fund (or whatever that figure might be) then no one is being "robbed" of their first amendment rights to be heard. If this is truly unconstutional, then again, I think a majority of Americans would support an amendment to the Constitution. The sad thing is that I literally hear no one on any major stage talking about this and it is sad. The only groups that I think would tackle this issue are the Tea Party and Libertarians. While I applaud the Tea Party for their stance on fiscal matters, their laudable goals would be much more easily achieved without fighting back against the money contributed by the unions, defense contractors, Kochs, and Soros's of the world.

Mike of PA 12:40AM April 20, 2011

Sort of like teacher & car unions. How about Planned Parenthood & Trial lawyers. Nearly forgot Acorn.
Let's not forget BP & GE. Banks & the like support Democrats and barry.
Hank, about time Republicans got some campaign money. Barry expects to raise a $$$ billion for his relection. He greased enough axles to get it.

Bill Hedges of MO 12:19AM April 18, 2011

Time to End the Presidential Funding Tax Checkoff?

Taxpayers can check a box on federal tax forms to designate $3 toward presidential campaigns.

Yes

No