When you do your taxes this year ...

[athena]

please check the box near the beginning that says "Presidential Election Campaign: Check here if you, or your spouse if filing jointly, want $3 to go to this fund." For years, I didn't check this box, thinking the $3 would be added to my income tax. This year, I read the instructions more carefully, and the $3 doesn't get added to one's taxes. Checking the box simply ensures that $3 goes to the presidential election campaign. Here is the explanation from the instructions:

Presidential Election Campaign Fund
This fund helps pay for Presidential election campaigns. The fund reduces candidats' dependence on large contributions from individuals and groups and places candidates on an equal financial footing in the general election. If you want $3 to go to this fund, check the box. If you are filing a joint return, your spouse can also have $3 go to the fund. If you check a box, your tax or refund will not change.

If you think elections should be publicly financed, please remember to check the box. If everyone checks it, it will be a big step in the right direction.

[electron_blue]

1. Thanks for pointing that out and...

why do you have a red pepper for an avatar?

I loooooooove red peppers.

[athena]

2. No special reason ...

I just like the avatar. I also love red peppers. They're expensive, though.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

3. I Think Your Heart and Mind Is Definitely In The Right Place.

Unfortunately though, as honorable an idea as it is, I don't see how it would impact the level at which corporations buy elections whatsoever.

[athena]

7. Here is how it might help.

Any candidate who uses this fund must agree not to get any private contributions. If the fund is large, it might be easier for a candidate to choose this option. And if a presidential candidate really did run a publicly financed campaign, it would be a huge deal. (Any unused amount gets left in the fund for the following year.)

http://www.fec.gov/info/checkoff.htm

May Any Candidate Receive the Public Funds?

No. The Federal Election Commission (FEC) certifies the eligibility only of those candidates who meet the strict qualifications established by Congress.

• Checkoff dollars are given only to Presidential candidates who demonstrate broad national support.
  
• General election nominees must agree not to accept any private contributions (from individuals or PACs, for example).
  
• Candidates must promise not to spend more than $50,000 of their own money on their campaign.
  
• Recipients of public funds must adhere to a limit on total spending.
  

[athena]

9. Also, here is how it hurts not to check "yes".

This fund is the only public source of financing available to presidential candidates. Republicans have been trying to scrap the program for a long time, pointing to the low rate of participation as evidence that the public is opposed to public financing of elections.

from http://www.citizen.org/congress/campaign/issues/pub_fin/articles.cfm?ID=10642 :

The presidential public financing system has long been under attack in Congress, dating back to its origins in 1966. Congress routinely debates ending public financing and the tax checkoff program. Rep. Bob Stump (R-Ariz.) summarized this sentiment in Congress when speaking in favor of the “Termination of Presidential Elections Campaign Act” (H.R. 191): “The public has overwhelmingly rejected the (public) campaign funds as is illustrated by declining participation rates (in the tax checkoff program).”

The argument that taxpayers are voting against the public financing system with their dollars is a far stretch. In every public opinion poll regarding public financing of campaigns – whether public financing is described in its most favorable light as “clean elections” or its least favorable light of “tax dollars” – the percentage of respondents supporting public financing ranges anywhere from a high of 70 percent to a low of 30 percent – much higher than the taxpayer participation rate. Apparently, the motivation for or against participation in the checkoff program is affected by more than support or opposition to public financing.

When participation in the tax checkoff program was at its steepest decline in the early 1990s, the FEC conducted focus-group opinion-polling on what motivates taxpayers to participate in the tax checkoff program. The results showed that most taxpayers knew very little about the program. About 15 percent of taxpayers did not designate either box on their tax forms. Among those who checked “yes” there was a great deal of uncertainty as to how the money would be used or even why the tax checkoff exists. Perhaps even more revealing were the reasons given by those who checked “no.” The most common reason given for not participating in the program was: “No particular reason/Don’t know” (23 percent). This was followed by: “They don’t need my money/They have plenty of money” (17 percent); “Don’t/Won’t give to politicians or political causes” (15 percent); and “Don’t want to expend $1” (13 percent). The last category indicates a misunderstanding of the checkoff program.

[fed-up]

4. Do you have any data to support this? Who got what? nt

[athena]

6. Data?

To support what? I don't understand. There is an old FAQ page with more details here: http://www.fec.gov/info/checkoff.htm

[fed-up]

12. Thanks for the add'l info, I didn't understand how it worked nt

[MazeRat7]

5. They should have a box that says "Get Drunk on Us".... I could use that.

I'm gonna get spanked this year and am not looking forward to it... how is it again I've got an "upper-middle class income" and I am paying "MORE" in taxes this year... tax cut my ass.....


MZr7

[athena]

13. I guess you get hit by the AMT?

The Alternative Minimum Tax is really starting to hurt the upper middle class.

[athena]

8. More info:

The fund was much more popular in the late 1970's, but participation has declined dramatically, despite the fact that most Americans believe presidential campaigns should be publicly financed. I suspect this is because people don't realize that checking the box doesn't increase one's tax. Or, they want to avoid having anything to do with presidential campaign funding, which they feel is corrupt -- of course, that doesn't make sense; someone who wants the system to be less corrupt should check the box to express support for public financing. This fund shouldn't be taken for granted; congress tried to cancel it in the past.

This past election, neither Bush, nor Kerry, nor Howard Dean used this fund. It was used by most candidates until the mid-1990's:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/12/campaign.fund/

[crispini]

10. Good idea! K&R!

[athena]

11. Thank you!

:toast:

[athena]

14. Come on, people.

Please help spread the word. By checking "yes", you ensure that $3 of your tax goes toward public financing of presidential elections. That's $3 that doesn't go into the Iraq war, or into the ever-expanding defense budget, or into no-bid contracts for the Republican-party's cronies. It's the only place on the tax form where you get to decide where part of your tax should go.

To clarify, once again, the $3 is not in addition to your tax; it's $3 of the tax you already owe. You just get to tell the government, "By the way, I want $3 of my taxes this year to go into the presidential campaign fund." And the money does not go to any candidate who uses private financing.

[hamerfan]

15. Thanks for bringing this up!

It's a good time of year to remind people of this check-off. The wife and I have been checking it off for years now, just wish more people would, as it may be the closest we ever get to a "makes sense" way of financing political campaigns. Thanks again! :kick:
dumpbush

[crispini]

16. .