I am doing my taxes. Should I give "$3 to the Pres. Elect. Campaign fund?"

[Renew Deal]

Poll question: I am doing my taxes. Should I give "$3 to the Pres. Elect. Campaign fund?"

Presidential Election Campaign Fund
This money goes to provide federal funding for qualifying presidential candidates. Checking the box will not increase your tax or decrease your refund.

[hedgetrimmer]

1. bump

[MercutioATC]

2. Remember, LaRouche gets matching funds......

I never check the box.

[LuminousX]

3. It's free, it doesn't come out of your return

[BootinUp]

4. Why No?

That would be a typical republican position methinks. Whats the democratic party reason for answering no?

[MercutioATC]

10. Because some of that $$ goes to Repubs and candidates like LaRouche.

If you want to support a candidate, do it! Why agree to have the government use your tax dollars to fund a campaign you might really NOT agree with???

[Julien Sorel]

5. Keep it, and donate it to a candidate or cause you believe in.

Those matching funds go to all candidates, and there are far too many objectionable politicians out there who control my tax dollars as it is -- I'm not going to willingly donate a few more bucks to them. The conservative approach is right on this issue: you are the best person to judge where your money is best donated.

[MercutioATC]

7. One of the few issues we agree on! Use it how YOU see fit....

otherwise, there's the certainty (not possibility, CERTAINTY) that somebody like LaRouche will benefit from your decision.

Keep in mind, Repubs get a piece of that money, too...

[camero]

11. There is one point though

They don't get this money if they refuse the spending limits. Which means Bush doesn't get any. It's a good way to help third parties get started.

[MercutioATC]

12. Yes, but you have no say as to who gets the money. Isn't it better to

give the money to the candidate you support? David Duke got matching funds, if I'm not mistaken...

[camero]

13. You can do that too

But the money should be there. David Duke still doesn't get many votes. It still all comes down to votes. In an honest election that is.

[MercutioATC]

14. I see your point, but I disagree. I'd rather make the decision myself.

...it IS a difficult issue, though.

Peace.

[doc03]

6. Yes

What's the difference they are taking it anyway? I am also pledging
my share of the Bush tax cut to the Democratic nominee, I have $6.00 for the lucky winner.

[rasputin1952]

8. I have always checked 'Yes'...

This is one small way i can see that the $ is divided equitably. In the case of bush, he didn't request matching funds, he's going it alone with the $ he's picked up from those donors we pay for him to travel to.

That $3 box is one of the few ways we can insure that people get funding for their campaigns, for me, it is a form of equitable democracy.

O8)

[girl gone mad]

9. I always check yes.

At least I know that's $3 fewer for the DOD.

[Yupster]

15. DoD will get theirs

It just adds $ 3 more to the defecit.

[Renew Deal]

16. kick

:kick:

[recidivist]

17. I oppose public financing of campaigns.

Politicians and political parties should depend on voluntary contributions. It is a good thing that they have to ask for our support. It is a good thing that we can say yes or no. The politicians work for us, not the other way around.

This is a big country and there is plenty of money on all serious sides (as opposed to the screwball fringe positions) of major issues. A candidate or party that can't attract voluntary financial backing deserves to lose and should not be propped up by public subsidy.

The fact is, public financing is desired primarily by political elites that hold their nominal constituents in contempt and think that asking for support is beneath their dignity. This is the reverse of how a representative democracy is supposed to work. Make 'em work for their money. And let 'em raise it wherever they wish, subject to full and immediate disclosure. That's safeguard enough.

[mac2]

18. Make'em work for their money?

"Make 'em work for their money. And let 'em raise it wherever they wish, subject to full and immediate disclosure. That's safeguard enough."

It doesn't work when representatives spend all their time raising money for their campaign and get little else done. There should be a limit...and free media coverage (we own the airway and Internet).

The campaign should be time limited also. Yes..they have a jobs to do but some spend 90% time running the next campaign and promising political influence with the money...such as Cheney.

After 20 years. an international foreign employer is asking employees for donations so the company can pick the candidate that will help them the most. This is wrong because the chosen candidate may not in the long run be good for anyone...such as Bush.

Sorry...I want them to work for the money we give them not Exxon, Halliburton, or Enron, etc. The wealthy have all the power and money...we need to be represented.

[Bandit]

19. One of the only things that is going to save our Democracy is public

financing of elections. As long as "Big Money" gets to throw their weight around we will never have good representation. So most definitely YES to the three dollars. It doesn't cost you one cent more.