Obama Signs Landmark Legislation Ending Public Funding of Political Conventions

Well this is interesting just days after SCOTUS determined no limits on contributions.

WASHINGTON, D.C., April 7, 2014– A day after the Supreme Court of the United States declined to limit federal campaign donations by upholding Citizens United, President Obama quietly signed into law new legislation that ended the public financing of presidential campaign conventions.

Quietly eh? Business as usual it seems, sneaking in another policy without open scrutiny. So it will save the taxpayers money?

“It’s good news to the taxpayers of America that after something like three decades, we will not be using tax money to pay for the political conventions,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said after the measure cleared the Senate last month. “For balloons and all of the rest that are part of a political convention, that ought to be paid for by willing donors, not by the taxpayers of the United States.”

Yea I don't want tax money going to gallons, but mores so I don't want tax money going to bafoons!

Obama championed the bill “a wonderful way to remember a wonderful girl”, while never mentioning its related requirement to “terminate the entitlement of national committees of eligible political parties to payments from the Presidential Election Campaign Fund.”

The money(36 million) originally allotted for funding will now go to help diseased children, but it sounds like it needs a guarantee.

This bill takes a cynical approach to two serious problems,” said Common Cause President Miles Rapoport. “First, it strengthens the hold of millionaire donors, corporations, trade groups and other special interests on our political parties and their candidates. Those big donors will swoop in to cover convention expenses now absorbed by public funds, and they’ll extract all manner of special favors in return.”

The legislation also falsely purports to divert the $36 million now available every four years for conventions to support research into childhood diseases, Rapoport said. In fact, that money would be appropriated through the normal congressional review process, with no guarantee that it would wind up helping sick kids.

www.commoncause.org...
I thought initially this was a good idea, but reading this part below gives me concern.

Many oppose the bill. In fact, many Democrats were furious. House Minority Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D- Calif.) voiced extreme opposition to the bill. Common Cause, a nonpartisan government watchdog, called the move a step in the wrong direction.

“It strengthens the hold of millionaire donors, corporations, trade groups and other special interests on our political parties and their candidates,” warned Common Cause president Miles Rapoport. “Those big donors will swoop in to cover convention expenses now absorbed by public funds, and they’ll extract all manner of special favors in return.”
www.commoncause.org...

Seems like good intention may only fuel the corruptive force of big money in campaigning. THis bill specifies 'convention' and I guess this will not apply to individuals. Regardless, I suppose removing the costs from taxpayers is a good thing, no? The rest is inevitable it seems, so let the billionaire spending wars begin
So what say you? Overall good, bad or makes no difference?

benswann.com...

reply to post by speculativeoptimist


It is quite obvious that this country is under a hostile takeover by corporations/banks.

Look at the direction the SCOTUS is going........

I want to wave good bye to my country, but I am not dead yet!!!!!

reply to post by speculativeoptimist


Now if we could just get him to sign a bill eliminating paid vacations for Presidential families, I would be tickled.

Aliensun
reply to post by speculativeoptimist

 

Now if we could just get him to sign a bill eliminating paid vacations for Presidential families, I would be tickled.

This was the funniest thing I read all day and I have been on here for about 8 hours now!! lol.....

Good luck getting the 200 vacations a year taken away! Not to mention golfing trips and BS crap he blows money on.....That is WAAAAAAY over 36 million....

Well this is interesting just days after SCOTUS determined no limits on contributions. - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...

This is misunderstood by quite a few people.

What it means is people,unions, and corporations will be able to buy more politicians.

And Obama just sealed the deal just for union and corporate money for the 'conventions'.

reply to post by neo96


Well, fair is fair. The way it was before only unions could buy politicians, and you know who they bought. Now, everyone can buy someone.

So, what do you do?

ketsuko
reply to post by neo96

 

Well, fair is fair. The way it was before only unions could buy politicians, and you know who they bought. Now, everyone can buy someone.

So, what do you do?

I think I have better things to spend my money on.

Which is why I have not, nor will ever give money to a politician.

Many oppose the bill. In fact, many Democrats were furious. House Minority Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D- Calif.) voiced extreme opposition to the bill. Common Cause, a nonpartisan government watchdog, called the move a step in the wrong direction.

“It strengthens the hold of millionaire donors, corporations, trade groups and other special interests on our political parties and their candidates,” warned Common Cause president Miles Rapoport. “Those big donors will swoop in to cover convention expenses now absorbed by public funds, and they’ll extract all manner of special favors in return.”
www.commoncause.org... - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by speculativeoptimist


This makes me laugh. Instead of Pelosi crying foul, maybe she and the rest of the representatives in congress get off their duff and pass real campaign finance reform. If these reps really want to stop corporate favoritism and political control, they need to back up their whining with hard nose bills that will stop this crap once and for all. I didn't hear a chorus of representatives protest the recent court ruling passing of unlimited corporate donations to political campaigns! They also ignored the ruling that corporations are people too! Our representatives in congress our worthless!

reply to post by speculativeoptimist


On the face of it I agree, there should be no public campaign finance money.

The thread makes it sound like this was Obama's idea.

reply to post by neo96


Thanks for the clarification.
So do you think this is good or bad for US?

reply to post by greencmp

Not his ideas necessarily, more of a response to Citizens United, but he is the commander in chief so if is not his idea, he must still be in support of it and granted the power for utilization. I apologize if I implied it was all him. The title kind of makes it sound that away though.
I am curious how this helps Citizens United specifically.

reply to post by greencmp


There should only be publicly financed campaigns. Never private. This is more selling out to Corporations and the ultra rich. UGH!

ETA and yes Unions too.

speculativeoptimist
reply to post by neo96

 

Thanks for the clarification.
So do you think this is good or bad for US?

Depends on ones viewpoint.

Some will say good.

Some will say bad.

But people are never going to be able to get the 'money out of politics'.

They need it to make them commericals that can be basically summed up as 'Don't vote the other guy hes evil, vote for me instead'.

That is the whole aim of practical politics point out each others faults, and never acknowledging their own.

Then depending on how intrusive the laws they think we need so much.

The bigger more power they take.

The more money they get for their campaigns.

The bad part here is career politicians.

That need term limits.

speculativeoptimist
reply to post by greencmp

 

Not his ideas necessarily, more of a response to Citizens United, but he is the commander in chief so if is not his idea, he must still be in support of it and granted the power for utilization. I apologize if I implied it was all him. The title kind of makes it sound that away though.
I am curious how this helps Citizens United specifically.

edit on 7-4-2014 by speculativeoptimist because: (no reason given)

Well Obama had no problems raising 2 billion dollars to become president.

IF it was so stacked against the 'little guy' he would have never been potus.

What a stupid move. Like our politicians aren't being bought off left and right by lobbyists and such already, now we open the door for those people to swoop in and cover these expenses? "Oh hi there, Mr Candidate. I see you're short on the costs for this shindig, let me help. And in return...." Idiots, the whole lot of them. I don't like the idea of politicians using public money for their campaigns and conventions, but it's a better way of ensuring they can't be bought (as much) while in the running, as well as keeping even ground for all of them with the allotted budgets. But nawp, let's lift some restrictions and let the wealthy shovel check after check after check, let's give them a reason to cover convention expenses. Because this can't possibly backfire at all.

reply to post by Kali74


I absolutely agree with you. Its been my belief for quite some time that our election campaigns should have a system of 100% public financing.

America for sale.

Bidding will start at $___,___,___,___.__

What most people consistently miss about the Citizens United ruling is that the government was up before the SCOTUS essentially arguing that Campaign Finance Law gave them the power to ban books. Yes, ban books. Their point was that if the books was considered electioneering of the right kind, they could stop it from being published and released within a certain timeframe of an election if a candidate's name was mentioned if they so chose.

It was basically this argument that lost them the case. So if you don't like Citizen's United, understand what exactly it was that the government was trying to use campaign finance to do.

As soon as the left lost, they went out in the streets and spun it as "corporations being people," and that's what the SCOTUS did. What is was really about was stopping was a point of free speech - do people have the right release electioneering books and movies that are relevant to an upcoming election at a point when they might affect the outcome?

The government wanted to say no.

vor78
reply to post by Kali74

 

I absolutely agree with you. Its been my belief for quite some time that our election campaigns should have a system of 100% public financing.

Should they? Who determines how much and to which candidates and to which parties? If you are leaning libertarian with all the anti-libertarian crap that's been pulled lately, you might disagree.

vor78
reply to post by Kali74

 

I absolutely agree with you. Its been my belief for quite some time that our election campaigns should have a system of 100% public financing.

That's the most significant thing that can be done towards ending corruption and cronyism. I don't know why we aren't demanding this.