NationStates Jolt Archive

TrashCat sez: Hmmm. No Greens, No Libertarians, Nothing but Red & Blue. How thoughtful of them.

-------------------------------

Proposed Legislation Creates Treasury-Funded Campaigns for the Two Major Parties, Leaving Third Parties with No Means to Run

(Washington, D.C.) On February 1, congressional Democrats, led by Rep. Obey (D) of Wisconsin, introduced a bill, H.R. 4694, that would end viable, third-party competition in races for the U.S. House of Representatives.

The bill, ironically named the "Let the People Decide Clean Campaign Act," would mandate public funds (taken from the U.S. Treasury) to candidates for the House of Representatives and forbid candidates from taking private funds such as contributions from individual donors.

The ambiguously-written bill provides funds for candidates of the "two major parties" but essentially scuttles any campaign efforts of third-party or independent candidates.

For third-party candidates to be eligible for the same funds that Republicans and Democrats would receive, they would have to obtain enough signatures to exceed 20% of votes cast in the last election within their district.

The catch under the proposed legislation is that third-party or independent candidates cannot pay petitioners to collect any signatures, making it impossible to fund their campaigns.

H.R. 4694 is yet another attempt by our politicians in office to shut down Libertarian Party candidates and other competitive third-party and independent campaigns.

"The Republican and Democratic parties exist to maintain power for their own benefit. The Libertarian Party exists to grasp power for the benefit of the nation," stated Shane Cory, chief of staff for the Libertarian Party. "American voters are waking up to this reality, and as they do, the two parties are trying everything within their power to shut us down."

------------------------------------

One of those prats stick their legs under my desk and I'll show them how much Red comes through their Blue Slacks. FFFT!

That is fucking rediculous... no way it'll pass.

The Libertarians are fucking nuts, if they got in power, they would make Republicans look like Libertarian-lite.

However, this is crap. So, they are killing two birds with one stone: preventing any creation of a viable third party, and taking money from the government will-nilly. Go government!

Of course they want to keep third parties out. Hell, they have it pretty good. Excellent pay and outstanding benefits to say nothing of the power the office gives them. They, like any union want to protect and keep what they have and the hell with the people.

That is fucking rediculous... no way it'll pass.

Never ever say "no way." Statements like that can bite you in the ass. :D

Simple way around this, even if it doesn't get rejected. Privately fund a generic "Anti-Main-Party" campaign, exploiting the wrongs of the two-party state. It's not an election mandate, so it's not covered by the bill. That way, there's a chance that the bigger 3rd parties might win the 20% necessary to receive the funding.

This works very well in Belgium. However, I do believe it's easier for the parties in Belgium to get the funding.

That 20% limit is just ridiculous. Way too high.

However, eliminating private donors is a good idea.

(Washington, D.C.) On February 1, congressional Democrats, led by Rep. Obey (D) of Wisconsin, introduced a bill, H.R. 4694, that would end viable, third-party competition in races for the U.S. House of Representatives.


End viable third-party competition? Something has to begin before it can end.

The Libertarians are fucking nuts, if they got in power, they would make Republicans look like Libertarian-lite.!
Libertarian-lite. All the taste of libertarianism, absoluely none of the calories.
Mmm...

Third parties are hardly 'competitive', but I do agree with your other points. This is just an attempt to stomp out potential competition some time in the future, smart, if unsubtle.

TrashCat sez: Hmmm. No Greens, No Libertarians, Nothing but Red & Blue. How thoughtful of them.

-------------------------------

Proposed Legislation Creates Treasury-Funded Campaigns for the Two Major Parties, Leaving Third Parties with No Means to Run

(Washington, D.C.) On February 1, congressional Democrats, led by Rep. Obey (D) of Wisconsin, introduced a bill, H.R. 4694, that would end viable, third-party competition in races for the U.S. House of Representatives.

The bill, ironically named the "Let the People Decide Clean Campaign Act," would mandate public funds (taken from the U.S. Treasury) to candidates for the House of Representatives and forbid candidates from taking private funds such as contributions from individual donors.

The ambiguously-written bill provides funds for candidates of the "two major parties" but essentially scuttles any campaign efforts of third-party or independent candidates.

For third-party candidates to be eligible for the same funds that Republicans and Democrats would receive, they would have to obtain enough signatures to exceed 20% of votes cast in the last election within their district.

The catch under the proposed legislation is that third-party or independent candidates cannot pay petitioners to collect any signatures, making it impossible to fund their campaigns.

H.R. 4694 is yet another attempt by our politicians in office to shut down Libertarian Party candidates and other competitive third-party and independent campaigns.

"The Republican and Democratic parties exist to maintain power for their own benefit. The Libertarian Party exists to grasp power for the benefit of the nation," stated Shane Cory, chief of staff for the Libertarian Party. "American voters are waking up to this reality, and as they do, the two parties are trying everything within their power to shut us down."

------------------------------------

One of those prats stick their legs under my desk and I'll show them how much Red comes through their Blue Slacks. FFFT!

This is merely Chicken Little spin on an idea that has an entirely different purpose. The idea is to make campaigns federally funded, so as to eliminate the corruption caused by money in politics. The tricky part comes when you decide whose campaigns get funded. Requiring that you belong to a party that receives at least 20% of the populations support is not exactly unfair. If you can't get 20% of the voters to support you, you aren't going to win the election anyway.

Think about it.

(There are many nuances to this bill, but this Libertarian Party press release is just sour grapes.)

This is merely Chicken Little spin on an idea that has an entirely different purpose. The idea is to make campaigns federally funded, so as to eliminate the corruption caused by money in politics. The tricky part comes when you decide whose campaigns get funded. Requiring that you belong to a party that receives at least 20% of the populations support is not exactly unfair. If you can't get 20% of the voters to support you, you aren't going to win the election anyway.

Think about it.

(There are many nuances to this bill, but this Libertarian Party press release is just sour grapes.)

Actually, having a lot of candidates is a good thing. They then share all the campaign funds, which will therefore be a smaller amount per party, and this also means that the party that can put these funds to the best use is likely to be more known and well-liked. It would really help to put more parties into power in the US, which might just make the country more fair.

But that's all I really disagree with. It shouldn't be 20%, because you should rather have several voting sessions.

End viable third-party competition? Something has to begin before it can end.
Beat me to it. I don't like this bill, and that's part of the reason, but it's not like third parties have been flourishing under the current system either. I'm for public financing of elections, and for removing the rights of personhood from corporations (because I believe corporate influence on elections is pervasive and dangerous), but I don't want third parties frozen out of the mix either.

...No Libertarians...shut down Libertarian Party candidates...
That's a good thing
[QUOTE=TrashCat]"...The Libertarian Party exists to grasp power for the benefit of the nation," stated Shane Cory, chief of staff for the Libertarian Party. "American voters are waking up to this reality, and as they do, the two parties are trying everything within their power to shut us down."
The libertarians don't want power for the people. They want power for impossible policies and making the poor poorer. Vote Socialist today!

Proposed Legislation Creates Treasury-Funded Campaigns for the Two Major Parties, Leaving Third Parties with No Means to Run

I don't think I've heard any suggestion in the past five years that would bring the US closer to dictatorship than this proposal.

I don't think I've heard any suggestion in the past five years that would bring the US closer to dictatorship than this proposal.
Then you've been hiding in a cave, smoking crack and listening to Britney Spears. Hello? PATRIOT Act? Son of PATRIOT Act?

With Bush as president, anything will be passed.

I said this before and I will say it again: America is slowly but steadily moving along that road leading to dicatorship.

I don't think I've heard any suggestion in the past five years that would bring the US closer to dictatorship than this proposal.

Then you aren't paying attention -- neither to this suggestion nor to the Bush Administration.

With Bush as president, anything will be passed.

I said this before and I will say it again: America is slowly but steadily moving along that road leading to dicatorship.
Bush would rather wear Oprah's thong as a face mask than sign this bill, if it passed (and it won't).

Bush would rather wear Oprah's thong as a face mask than sign this bill, if it passed (and it won't).
It won't pass? You're kidding right? Why wouldn't it pass? It guarantees the unchallenged reign of the Democrats and the Republicans for a long time.

Are you people not familiar with partial public funding of Presidential campaigns?

Its only been the law since Watergate.

http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/pubfund.shtml#anchor686308

Again, whether (and how) to publicly fund congressional races is a tricky issue, but the OP is much ado about nothing.

It won't pass? You're kidding right? Why wouldn't it pass? It guarantees the unchallenged reign of the Democrats and the Republicans for a long time.
Two reasons. First of all, it's a Democratic party bill, and in this legislature, that pretty much means it'll never get out of committee, much less to the floor for a vote, and even if it got there, there's hundreds of ways to kill it before a final vote.

Second, it's not like there's a real threat to the two-party reign we currently have. There's a reason for that--the game is already rigged. Incumbents get re-elected at a 90% clip most years. Third parties rarely, if ever, get more than about 15% of the vote, even in local elections--the best they can hope for is to be spoilers. There's no need for a bill like this if your goal is to kill third parties--you're better off leaving them permanently weakened as they are.

It won't pass? You're kidding right? Why wouldn't it pass? It guarantees the unchallenged reign of the Democrats and the Republicans for a long time.
Not unless the third parties begin rioting and burn down the capitol :D

Two reasons. First of all, it's a Democratic party bill, and in this legislature, that pretty much means it'll never get out of committee, much less to the floor for a vote, and even if it got there, there's hundreds of ways to kill it before a final vote.

Second, it's not like there's a real threat to the two-party reign we currently have. There's a reason for that--the game is already rigged. Incumbents get re-elected at a 90% clip most years. Third parties rarely, if ever, get more than about 15% of the vote, even in local elections--the best they can hope for is to be spoilers. There's no need for a bill like this if your goal is to kill third parties--you're better off leaving them permanently weakened as they are.
Of course it's rigged, but why not write it into law?

One-party states:

Burma
China
Egypt
Rwanda
Syria

Two-party states:

USA - "world's greatest democracy (Tm)"



/\___
@@@@@@@@@@@ O \
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@____/
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@ @@@@@@@@@@@@
|| ||
~~ ~~
- Baaaaaa!

Of course it's rigged, but why not write it into law?
Because then third parties might actually be able to generate some public sympathy for their situation. You might get some grassroots activism going, and you don't want that if you're the entrenched power. Look at a major party example of that from 2004--Howard Dean. He jumped to the forefront of the presidential race in 2004 because he found a way to bypass the traditional power blocs in the party. The party powerful wanted anyone but Dean because of this, and they had just enough stroke left to kill him in Iowa. Dean made missteps, to be sure, but not the kind that would have caused that kind of plummeting unless there was a concerted effort from the traditional powers to get rid of him. They didn't want real power in the hands of the filthy unwashed, and in 2004, who did they nominate? An aristocrat.

It's much more effective to marginalize third parties because to try to eliminate them just makes them more sympathetic.

None of this should be construed to mean that I don't like third parties. I'd love to see them gain a foothold and challenge the powers that be. But I'm not blind to the strategy to contain them.

End viable third-party competition? Something has to begin before it can end.

Maybe it's a beginning they're trying to scuttle.

This won't help the third parties because they are already public entities: people know they exist and know what they stand for. There is nothing they can gain from this but something to bitch about despite there never having been a chance for them to reach any sort of powerful position in the federal government.

Well, serious structural reforms are needed for "third" parties to break into the race in a big way.

There is a danger in having more than two parties, though. We could end up with minority governments. Presidents that win with 35% of the vote. Congress in a stalemate because no party has more than 50% of the seats, etc...

I believe that third parties are important because when they start to show a lot of support they force the major parties to address problems, I'm just not sure I would want one to become too prominent.

.... If I Said What I Want To Say, I'd Get Banned....

The Libertarians are fucking nuts, if they got in power, they would make Republicans look like Libertarian-lite.
Yeah, because Libertarians support all the major Republican things, like being pro-Iraq, anti-abortion, anti-gay rights, and handing government subsidies to major corporations.

However, this law is of only minimal importance. The fact is, the USian people are too stupid and apathetic to see past the two-party split. I'm sure that we could have a major Green and Libertarian movement (such a showdown would, at least, make politics vaguely interesting and important) if everyone quit being so paranoid that the other side would score.
Who the Hell votes for people based on their perceived electability? And yet, such is so often a major consideration.

I'm sure that we could have a major Green and Libertarian movement (such a showdown would, at least, make politics vaguely interesting and important) if everyone quit being so paranoid that the other side would score.
Personally, I'd like to see Libertarians vs. Greens vs. American Nazi Party, that'd get amusing. Or, we could just let the LNSG's run, and have all of that wrapped up into one party.

There the man goes again, trying to make himself look like he’s reforming when all he’s reaaly doing is finding new ways to screw us.

There the man goes again, trying to make himself look like he’s reforming when all he’s reaaly doing is finding new ways to screw us.

Perhaps if you read what has actually been proposed rather than an alarmist press release you'd be calmer.

H.R. 4694: Let the People Decide Clean Campaign Act (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h109-4694)

Perhaps if you read what has actually been proposed rather than an alarmist press release you'd be calmer.
I assure you that I am far from agitated, and am completely calm at the moment. One grows to expect these kind of things from those in power when one isn't blindly devoted to them or the institutions they oversee. But then, I wouldn’t expect you to understand. You’re part of the system, after all.

There is a danger in having more than two parties, though. We could end up with minority governments. Presidents that win with 35% of the vote. Congress in a stalemate because no party has more than 50% of the seats, etc...

I believe that third parties are important because when they start to show a lot of support they force the major parties to address problems, I'm just not sure I would want one to become too prominent.

'Danger'? Hell, I'm looking forward to it! Especially in Congress. And no, there won't be a stalemate in Congress because in such a situation, you would get the best of both worlds. Bill would forward through based on their merit and not on the political push of the majority party. You'd have a much more stable progression of government without radical swings in agenda every time the majority changes.

There's nothing dangerous about no party having a majority in Congress.

As for the President, it all comes down to Electoral votes. As long as one candidate has he majority of electoral votes, he will win. Popular vote aside. However, if no president has a majority of electoral votes, Congress chooses the new President.

At first, you might flinch. But wait for the punchline; It happened once. Do you know why Congress chose as President?Not the candidate with the most votes. Too much opposition. Not the second-most. Same thing. The candidate that came in FIFTH in the electoral college became President. John Quincy Adams,

Now that's multi-party politics for your ass. :D

P.S.; I like J.Q. Adams. He usd to skinny-dip in the Housatonic River when he was President. :)

I assure you that I am far from agitated, and am completely calm at the moment. One grows to expect these kind of things from those in power when one isn't blindly devoted to them or the institutions they oversee. But then, I wouldn’t expect you to understand. You’re part of the system, after all.

The OP flat out lies about what the bill is for and what its provisions are.

I assure you that I am far from agitated, and am completely calm at the moment. One grows to expect these kind of things from those in power when one isn't blindly devoted to them or the institutions they oversee. But then, I wouldn’t expect you to understand. You’re part of the system, after all.

I'm part of "the system"?

I'm part of "the system"?
Yeah ... I kinda boggled at that too! :eek:

This won't help the third parties because they are already public entities: people know they exist and know what they stand for. There is nothing they can gain from this but something to bitch about despite there never having been a chance for them to reach any sort of powerful position in the federal government.

There are tons of people who dont know what the third parties are and even more that dont know what they stand for.

With Bush as president, anything will be passed.

I said this before and I will say it again: America is slowly but steadily moving along that road leading to dicatorship.

not sure if you noticed this, probably not, but the person that introduced the bill, had a D by their name
d stands for democrat
Bush is a Republican

but hey, nice try at throwing in anti bushism

Yeah, because Libertarians support all the major Republican things, like being pro-Iraq, anti-abortion, anti-gay rights, and handing government subsidies to major corporations.
*snip*

Im just quoting this because I am afraid some people reading this didn't catch the sarcasm. :(

I'm part of "the system"?
You are a lawyer, are you not?
The OP flat out lies about what the bill is for and what its provisions are.
It matters not what the bill is for, but what its effects will be.

not sure if you noticed this, probably not, but the person that introduced the bill, had a D by their name
d stands for democrat
Bush is a Republican

but hey, nice try at throwing in anti bushism

Just because something was proposed by a democrat doesnt mean bush wont sign it. He will sign anything that gives the government more power. Preventing third party candidates from having a chance in hell gives the 2 party system more power. Theres a damn good chance he'll sign it.

You are a lawyer, are you not?.

Yes. But wtf has that got to do with it?

It matters not what the bill is for, but what its effects will be.

You haven't read the bill, have you? The OP lies about what the provisions of the bill are. It will not have the effects you fear.

the MORE you Know .....

How about we just outlaw political parties and let people vote for people based on their merits(and their vast personal wealth of course).

Yes. But wtf has that got to do with it?
You are an agent of the man. Despite whatever you claim to represent in your practice, or whatever the practice you are employed in claims to represent, your presence enables the government to run its current course using the same procedures it has used in the past. Thus, you are part of the system.
You haven't read the bill, have you? The OP lies about what the provisions of the bill are. It will not have the effects you fear.
Fine, it doesn't do what the OP says, but I sincerely doubt that the man is going to do me or anyone else but himself any favors.

You are an agent of the man. Despite whatever you claim to represent in your practice, or whatever the practice you are employed in claims to represent, your presence enables the government to run its current course using the same procedures it has used in the past. Thus, you are part of the system.

Fine, it doesn't do what the OP says, but I sincerely doubt that the man is going to do me or anyone else but himself any favors.

ROTFLASTC.

I don't see why they would bother. It's not like the american third parties have any chance anyway. Kinda funny how the term democracy is used when all the "rule" of the people consists of choosing one of two options every four years.

ROTFLASTC.
Fine, laugh. All your knowledge of the law will mean precisely dick in a few years anyway.

Fine, laugh. All your knowledge of the law will mean precisely dick in a few years anyway.

What? Come the "great revolution"?

You are an agent of the man. Despite whatever you claim to represent in your practice, or whatever the practice you are employed in claims to represent, your presence enables the government to run its current course using the same procedures it has used in the past. Thus, you are part of the system.

Fine, it doesn't do what the OP says, but I sincerely doubt that the man is going to do me or anyone else but himself any favors.

Your constant use of the phrase "the man" has me wondering, are you Foxy Brown by any chance?

There is a danger in having more than two parties, though. Presidents that win with 35% of the vote.


Considering that voter turnout in the U.S. is usually very low, this is pretty much the case already.


Congress in a stalemate because no party has more than 50% of the seats, etc...


Coalition Government. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_government)


I believe that third parties are important because when they start to show a lot of support they force the major parties to address problems, I'm just not sure I would want one to become too prominent.

So long as the United States maintains a single-member first-past-the-post electoral system, neither of these scenarios are worth worrying about. The only way third parties will have influence is if they move toward the center with the Republicans and Democrats. In such a situation, it's the third parties conforming to Rep/Dem politics, not the other way around.

What? Come the "great revolution"?
No, come Peak Oil. The American people are far too brainwashed by public education to have a revolution.

No, come Peak Oil. The American people are far too brainwashed by public education to have a revolution.

True, America won't have a revolution, but "Peak Oil" isn't going to destroy America. It will only slow it down a bit, if even that. The market will just shift to other forms of energy before oil peaks. But our current government isn't really helping to prevent peak oil at all. Not that it could, all it can do is prevent the market from preventing the damage of it. Which is exactly what its doing by not allowing drilling in the ANWAR.

True, America won't have a revolution, but "Peak Oil" isn't going to destroy America. It will only slow it down a bit, if even that. The market will just shift to other forms of energy before oil peaks. But our current government isn't really helping to prevent peak oil at all. Not that it could, all it can do is prevent the market from preventing the damage of it. Which is exactly what its doing by not allowing drilling in the ANWAR.
My God, your ignorance is astounding. I wish I had the time to correct the myriad errors in your post, but I have spring rolls awaiting me.

There ought to be such a reserve, yes, but as soon as another party shows up, they should get an equal cut. Or at least a cut based on the amount of areas they are running in.

Just because something was proposed by a democrat doesnt mean bush wont sign it. He will sign anything that gives the government more power. Preventing third party candidates from having a chance in hell gives the 2 party system more power. Theres a damn good chance he'll sign it.
If there's anything that runs close to certainty in this administration, it's that something proposed by a Democrat will never even get to Bush, much less be signed by him. But even if that were the case, there's another reason he wouldn't sign it--it's a sucker's bet for Republicans. They outraise the Democrats all the time--usually by a factor of about 3 to 1, though that's closed considerably in the last couple of years. Why on earth would they agree to a level playing field when they've got the advantage, monetarily speaking?

How about we just outlaw political parties and let people vote for people based on their merits(and their vast personal wealth of course).

Because then you'll have people voting for Aunt Sally or Mr. Whisker the feisty cat. Me, for the hell of it I would vote for Ronald Mc. Donald. That is why we have political parties.

That's a good thing
"...The Libertarian Party exists to grasp power for the benefit of the nation," stated Shane Cory, chief of staff for the Libertarian Party. "American voters are waking up to this reality, and as they do, the two parties are trying everything within their power to shut us down."
The libertarians don't want power for the people. They want power for impossible policies and making the poor poorer. Vote Socialist today!
Can't vote Socialist if the Socialists are shut out of the process along with the Libertarians.

All this "Campaign Finance Reform" is simply an effort to ensure people have no one else to vote for than R or D.

You can't win an election without financial support, and you won't get financial support if you can't win.

All the Big Money will always find a way into the coffers of the Incumbents. These "Campaign Finance Reform" issues exist simply to make it harder to replace incumbents with anything but another Republocrat.

Then you've been hiding in a cave, smoking crack and listening to Britney Spears. Hello? PATRIOT Act? Son of PATRIOT Act?
Yes. This even beats out the Patriot act. (I haven't heard of his son.)

The Patriot Act could be repealed in the future. If this passes, it will never be repealed this side of an armed revolution.

It's really getting shocking. The power in America is concentrated in a duopoly of two parties that are so similar that it's close to a dictatorship anyway.

I'm part of "the system"?
Well, you're a lawyer and your political views pretty much align exactly with those of the Democrats, or at least those of the stereotypical Democrat. Maybe that's what Undelia means.

not sure if you noticed this, probably not, but the person that introduced the bill, had a D by their name
d stands for democrat
Bush is a Republican

but hey, nice try at throwing in anti bushism
Way to miss the point. Both parties are in on this whole thing. Their opposition is mostly just show.

One-party states:

Burma
China
Egypt
Rwanda
Syria

Two-party states:

USA - "world's greatest democracy (Tm)"

/\___
@@@@@@@@@@@ O \
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@____/
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@ @@@@@@@@@@@@
|| ||
~~ ~~
- Baaaaaa!
rofl... how very fitting! :D
Once they got any other parties abolished, the two big parties (which really aren't all that different) will form a big union to reach their ultimate goal, becoming a one-party-state! :D

Never ever say "no way." Statements like that can bite you in the ass. :D
Precisely. Look at the McCain-Feingold Incumbent Protection Act for an example of what could happen. Bill passes, goes to the President, he signs it, even though he states that it is unconstitutional. Supreme Court upholds the law. Now, we've just done away with the free speech of special interest groups near election time.

I'd say that there's every way in the world that this bill will become law. After all, it 'protects' us from corruption in politics, right?

Because then you'll have people voting for Aunt Sally or Mr. Whisker the feisty cat. Me, for the hell of it I would vote for Ronald Mc. Donald. That is why we have political parties.
I find myself strongly considering casting a write-in vote for Mayor this Tuesday, as the three candidates are all varying levels of douchebag. They're douchebags in different ways, so it's not like I can even try to do a one-to-one comparison and do a least worst kind of vote.

The Libertarians are fucking nuts, if they got in power, they would make Republicans look like Libertarian-lite.

However, this is crap. So, they are killing two birds with one stone: preventing any creation of a viable third party, and taking money from the government will-nilly. Go government!

Actually Libertarians are right. :)

Actually Libertarians are right. :)
No, we're Center. We're right on some things and left on others.

It just so happens that means that everybody hates us.

This is merely Chicken Little spin on an idea that has an entirely different purpose. The idea is to make campaigns federally funded, so as to eliminate the corruption caused by money in politics. The tricky part comes when you decide whose campaigns get funded. Requiring that you belong to a party that receives at least 20% of the populations support is not exactly unfair. If you can't get 20% of the voters to support you, you aren't going to win the election anyway.

Think about it.

(There are many nuances to this bill, but this Libertarian Party press release is just sour grapes.)

Try getting 20% of the previous year's voters without having any funding. To suggest this would be easy or even only a little difficult is simply ridiculous.

No, we're Center. We're right on some things and left on others.

It just so happens that means that everybody hates us.

I didn't mean right wing I simply meant plain old right as in not wrong.

Try getting 20% of the previous year's voters without having any funding. To suggest this would be easy or even only a little difficult is simply ridiculous.
Shhh.

Don't confuse the Lawyer. Remember the #1 occupation of the Republocrats in Office. We proles aren't allowed to have an opinion on Lawmaking or Lawmakers.

Try getting 20% of the previous year's voters without having any funding. To suggest this would be easy or even only a little difficult is simply ridiculous.

If you look at the actually bill, this is not what it says.

If you look at the actually bill, this is not what it says.

Admittedly, I would be surprised if it made such a blatant attempt to shut people out of the process. Do you have a link to the bill? I'd be glad to read it.

Admittedly, I would be surprised if it made such a blatant attempt to shut people out of the process. Do you have a link to the bill? I'd be glad to read it.

I found it on thomas.loc.gov

Here's the pertinant section:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c109:1:./temp/~c109w9yq8c:e6449:


Lot's of boilerplate and legalese. I can't make anything definate out of it.

I found it on thomas.loc.gov

Here's the pertinant section:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c109:1:./temp/~c109w9yq8c:e6449:


Lot's of boilerplate and legalese. I can't make anything definate out of it.
Better Link: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?c109:./temp/~c109wlOsYz

Edit: Here's the important bit - well after the first bit telling the Major Parties how much they can spend (not raise).

SEC. 301. BAN ON INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURES IN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTIONS.

Section 315 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441a) is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection;

`(k) No person may make any independent expenditure with respect to an election for the office of Representative in, or Delegate or Resident Commissioner to, the Congress.'.

SEC. 302. BAN USE OF NONFEDERAL FUNDS FOR CERTAIN DISBURSEMENTS.

Title III of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

`BAN ON USE OF NONFEDERAL FUNDS FOR CERTAIN DISBURSEMENTS

`SEC. 325.

`No person may make any disbursement in connection with a campaign for an election for the office of Representative in, or Delegate or Resident Commissioner to, the Congress, or any disbursement in connection with any public communication made for purposes of supporting, opposing, attacking, promoting, or mentioning a candidate in such an election, unless the funds used for the disbursement are subject to the limitations, prohibitions, and reporting requirements of this Act.'.

Ok, so nobody can donate privately. Everybody has to draw out of the same pot up to their "maximum allowed amount". But some people get a bigger maximum than others:

`(b) Allocation- The maximum expenditure for a third party or independent candidate in a congressional district shall be the greater of the following amounts:

`(1) The amount that bears the same ratio to the maximum amount under subsection (b) or (c) of section 503, as applicable, as the total popular vote in the district for candidates of the third party or for all independent candidates (as the case may be) in House of Representatives general elections bears to the total popular vote for all candidates in elections held during the period described in section 503(d)(3).

`(2) The amount that bears the same ratio to the maximum amount under subsection (b) or (c) of section 503, as applicable, as the total popular vote in the State involved for candidates of the third party or for all independent candidates (as the case may be) in elections for Federal office other than Presidential elections bears to the total popular vote for all candidates in elections held during the period described in section 503(d)(3).

`(3) The amount that bears the same ratio to the maximum amount under subsection (b) or (c) of section 503, as applicable, as the total popular vote in the State involved for candidates of the third party or for all independent candidates (as the case may be) in Presidential elections bears to the total popular vote for all candidates in Presidential elections held during the period described in section 503(d)(3).

i.e., a non-major party candidate only gets a percentage of the allotted funds based upon the percentage of the total popular vote recieved during the previous election. Which, in essence means SQUAT for a new challanger - who had no percentage in the last election.

(whole text - as absurd as it is - follows)

HR 4694 IH


109th CONGRESS

2d Session

H. R. 4694
To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to provide for expenditure limitations and public financing for House of Representatives general elections, and for other purposes.


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

February 1, 2006
Mr. OBEY (for himself, Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts, Ms. DELAURO, Mr. FILNER, Mr. ISRAEL, Mr. MCGOVERN, Mr. RYAN of Ohio, and Mr. WAXMAN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on House Administration, and in addition to the Committees on Ways and Means and Rules, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


A BILL
To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to provide for expenditure limitations and public financing for House of Representatives general elections, and for other purposes.


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; FINDING.

(a) Short Title- This Act may be cited as the `Let the People Decide Clean Campaign Act'.

(b) Finding- The Congress finds that the existing system of private political contributions has become a fundamental threat to the integrity of the national election process, has undermined public confidence in the legitimacy of that election process, and that the provisions contained in this Act are necessary to prevent the corruption of the public's faith in the Nation's system of governance.

TITLE I--EXPENDITURE LIMITATIONS AND PUBLIC FINANCING FOR HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES GENERAL ELECTIONS

SEC. 101. EXPENDITURE LIMITATIONS AND PUBLIC FINANCING OF HOUSE GENERAL ELECTIONS.

(a) Expenditure Limitations and Public Financing- The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following new title:

`TITLE V--EXPENDITURE LIMITATIONS AND PUBLIC FINANCING FOR HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES GENERAL ELECTIONS

`SEC. 501. LIMITATION ON EXPENDITURES IN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES GENERAL ELECTIONS.

`A candidate in a House of Representatives general election may not make expenditures other than as provided in this title.

`SEC. 502. SOURCES OF AMOUNTS FOR EXPENDITURES BY CANDIDATES IN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES GENERAL ELECTIONS.

`The only sources of amounts for expenditures by candidates in House of Representatives general elections shall be--

`(1) the Grassroots Good Citizenship Fund under section 506; and

`(2) additional amounts from State and national party committees under section 507.

`SEC. 503. DISTRICT LIMITATION ON EXPENDITURES BY MAJOR PARTY CANDIDATES.

`(a) In General- Except as provided in sections 505 and 507, the maximum amounts of expenditures by major party candidates in House of Representatives general elections shall be based on the median household income of the districts involved, as provided for in subsections (b) and (c).

`(b) Maximum for Wealthiest District- In the congressional district with the highest median household income, maximum combined expenditures for all major party candidates with respect to a House of Representatives general election shall be a total of $1,500,000.

`(c) Maximum for Other Districts- In each congressional district, other than the district referred to in subsection (b), the maximum combined expenditures for all major party candidates with respect to a House of Representatives general election shall be an amount equal to--

`(1) the maximum amount referred to in subsection (b), less

`(2) the amount equal to--

`(A) 2/3 of the percentage difference between the median household income of the district involved and the median household income of the district referred to in subsection (b), times

`(B) the maximum amount referred to in subsection (b).

`(d) Allocation-

`(1) IN GENERAL- The maximum expenditure for a major party candidate in a congressional district shall bear the same ratio to the maximum amount under subsection (b) or (c), as applicable, as the total popular vote in the same precincts in which the general election will be held for candidates of the party in all House of Representatives general elections occurring during the period described in paragraph (3) bears to the total popular vote in such precincts for candidates of all major parties in all such elections, except that in determining the total popular vote in such precincts for candidates of any party in elections occurring during the period described in paragraph (3), votes cast in any House of Representatives general election for which there were fewer than 2 major party candidates shall not be taken into account.

`(2) EXCEPTION FOR DISTRICTS WITH NO CONTESTED ELECTIONS- If, during the period described in paragraph (3), no House of Representatives general election for which there were at least 2 major party candidates was held in any of the same precincts in which the general election will be held, the maximum expenditure for a major party candidate in the district shall bear the same ratio to the maximum amount under subsection (b) or (c), as applicable, as the total popular vote in all such precincts for candidates of the party in all elections for the office of Senator occurring during the period described in paragraph (3) bears to the total popular vote in all such precincts for candidates of all major parties in all such elections.

`(3) PERIOD DESCRIBED- With respect to a House of Representatives general election in a congressional district, the period described in this paragraph is the period beginning on the date of the second most recent House of Representatives general election held in the district and ending on the day before the date of the election.

`SEC. 504. DISTRICT LIMITATION ON EXPENDITURES BY THIRD PARTY AND INDEPENDENT CANDIDATES.

`(a) In General- Except as provided in sections 505 and 507, the maximum amounts of expenditures by third party and independent candidates in House of Representatives general elections shall be the amount allocated under subsection (b).

`(b) Allocation- The maximum expenditure for a third party or independent candidate in a congressional district shall be the greater of the following amounts:

`(1) The amount that bears the same ratio to the maximum amount under subsection (b) or (c) of section 503, as applicable, as the total popular vote in the district for candidates of the third party or for all independent candidates (as the case may be) in House of Representatives general elections bears to the total popular vote for all candidates in elections held during the period described in section 503(d)(3).

`(2) The amount that bears the same ratio to the maximum amount under subsection (b) or (c) of section 503, as applicable, as the total popular vote in the State involved for candidates of the third party or for all independent candidates (as the case may be) in elections for Federal office other than Presidential elections bears to the total popular vote for all candidates in elections held during the period described in section 503(d)(3).

`(3) The amount that bears the same ratio to the maximum amount under subsection (b) or (c) of section 503, as applicable, as the total popular vote in the State involved for candidates of the third party or for all independent candidates (as the case may be) in Presidential elections bears to the total popular vote for all candidates in Presidential elections held during the period described in section 503(d)(3).

`SEC. 505. PERMITTING ADDITIONAL EXPENDITURES BY CERTAIN ELIGIBLE CANDIDATES.

`(a) Additional Expenditures-

`(1) IN GENERAL- The maximum amount calculated under section 503 or 504 for any eligible candidate described in paragraph (2) shall be increased in accordance with subsection (b).

`(2) ELIGIBLE CANDIDATE DESCRIBED-

`(A) IN GENERAL- In this section, an `eligible candidate' is a major party, third party, or independent candidate in a House of Representatives general election who presents to the Commission petitions containing the signatures of individuals eligible to vote in the election (as verified by the Commission), except that the highest funded candidate in the election may not be an eligible candidate for purposes of this section.

`(B) PROHIBITING USE OF PAID SIGNATURE COLLECTORS- The Commission may not verify a signature presented under this section if any person received a direct or indirect payment to collect the signature.

`(3) HIGHEST FUNDED CANDIDATE DESCRIBED- In this section, the `highest funded candidate' is, with respect to an election, the major party, third party, or independent candidate who is permitted to make the greatest maximum amount of expenditures under this title, as calculated under either section 503 or 504 (but excluding any increase in the amount under this section and any additional amount permitted under section 507).

`(b) Determination of Amount of Increase in Maximum Expenditure Amount-

`(1) DETERMINATION- The increase in the maximum amount for an eligible candidate in a House of Representatives general election provided under this section shall be determined as follows:

`(A) If the number of signatures presented by the candidate to the Commission under subsection (a)(2) is equal to or greater than 20 percent of the total number of votes cast in the most recent comparable election in the same precincts in which the House of Representatives general election is held (as verified by the Commission), the maximum amount for the candidate shall be increased by an amount equal to the difference between--

`(i) the maximum amount of expenditures which the highest funded candidate in the election is permitted to make under this title, as calculated under either section 503 or 504 (but excluding any additional amount permitted under section 507); and

`(ii) the maximum amount of expenditures which the candidate is permitted to make under this title, as calculated under either section 503 or 504 (but excluding any increase in the amount under this section and any additional amount permitted under section 507).

`(B) If, in the case of a third party or independent candidate, the number of signatures presented by the candidate to the Commission under subsection (a)(2) is equal to or greater than 10 percent of the total number of votes cast in the most recent comparable election in the same precincts in which the House of Representatives general election is held (as verified by the Commission) and less than 20 percent of such total number of votes, the maximum amount for the candidate shall be increased by an amount equal to the difference between--

`(i) 50 percent of the maximum amount of expenditures which the highest funded candidate in the election is permitted to make under this title, as calculated under either section 503 or 504 (but excluding any additional amount permitted under section 507); and

`(ii) the maximum amount of expenditures which the candidate is permitted to make under this title, as calculated under either section 503 or 504 (but excluding any increase in the amount under this section and any additional amount permitted under section 507).

`(C) If the number of signatures presented by the candidate to the Commission under subsection (a)(2) is less than 10 percent (or, in the case of a major party candidate, less than 20 percent) of the total number of votes cast in the most recent comparable election in the same precincts in which the House of Representatives general election is held (as verified by the Commission), there shall be no increase in the maximum amount provided under this section.

`(2) MOST RECENT COMPARABLE ELECTION DEFINED- In this subsection, the term `most recent comparable election' means, with respect to a House of Representatives general election--

`(A) in the case of a regularly scheduled election held in a year in which a Presidential election is held, the most recent regularly scheduled election held in a year in which a Presidential election was held;

`(B) in the case of a regularly scheduled election held in a year in which a Presidential election is not held, the most recent regularly scheduled election held in a year in which a Presidential election is not held; and

`(C) in the case of a special election, the most recent House of Representatives general election held in the same precincts in which the election is held which the Commission considers appropriate for purposes of this section.

`SEC. 506. GRASSROOTS GOOD CITIZENSHIP FUND.

`(a) Creation of Fund- There is established in the Treasury a trust fund to be known as the `Grassroots Good Citizenship Fund', consisting of such amounts as may be credited to such fund as provided in this section.

`(b) District Accounts- There shall be established within the Grassroots Good Citizenship Fund an account for each congressional district. The accounts so established shall be administered by the Commission for the purpose of distributing amounts under this title.

`(c) Payments to Candidates- Subject to subsection (d), the Commission shall pay to each candidate from the Grassroots Good Citizenship Fund the maximum amount calculated for such candidate under section 503 or 504 and any additional amount calculated for the candidate under section 505.

`(d) Insufficient Amounts- If, as determined by the Commission, there are insufficient amounts in the Grassroots Good Citizenship Fund for payments under subsection (c), the Commission may reduce payments to candidates so that each candidate receives a pro rata portion of the amounts that are available.

`(e) Transfers to Fund- There are hereby credited to the Grassroots Good Citizenship Fund amounts equivalent to the amounts designated under section 6097 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

`(f) Expenditures- Amounts in the Grassroots Good Citizenship Fund shall be available for the purpose of providing amounts for expenditure by candidates in House of Representatives general elections in accordance with this title.

`SEC. 507. ADDITIONAL AMOUNTS FROM STATE AND NATIONAL PARTY COMMITTEES.

`(a) Contributions- In addition to amounts made available under section 503 or 504 and the additional amounts made available under section 505, in the case of a candidate in a House of Representatives general election who is the candidate of a political party, the State and national committees of that political party may make contributions to the candidate totaling not more than 5 percent of the maximum expenditure applicable to the candidate (as calculated under section 503 or section 504 and including any additional amount provided under section 505).

`(b) Expenditures- A House of Representatives candidate who is the candidate of a political party may make expenditures of the amounts received under subsection (a).

`SEC. 508. PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENTS.

`(a) In General- Beginning on January 15, and continuing through April 15 of each year, the Commission shall carry out a program, utilizing broadcast announcements and other appropriate means, to inform the public of the existence and purpose of the Grassroots Good Citizenship Fund and the role that individual citizens can play in the election process by voluntarily contributing to the fund. The announcements shall be broadcast during prime time viewing hours in 30-second advertising segments equivalent to 200 gross rating points per network per week. The Commission shall ensure that the maximum number of taxpayers shall be exposed to these announcements. Television networks, as defined by the Federal Communications Commission, shall provide the broadcast time under this section as part of their obligations in the public interest under the Communications Act of 1934. The Federal Election Commission shall encourage broadcast outlets other than the above mentioned television networks including radio to provide similar announcements.

`(b) Gross Rating Point- The term `gross rating point' is a measure of the total gross weight delivered. It is the sum of the ratings for individual programs. Since a household rating period is 1 percent of the coverage base, 200 gross rating points means 2 messages a week per average household.

`SEC. 509. AGGREGATION OF CANDIDATES AND AUTHORIZED COMMITTEES.

`For purposes of applying the restrictions and limitations of this title--

`(1) expenditures made by any authorized committee of a candidate shall be considered to be made by the candidate; and

`(2) contributions made to any authorized committee of a candidate shall be considered to be made to the candidate.

`SEC. 510. DEFINITIONS.

`As used in this title--

`(1) the term `House of Representatives candidate' means a candidate for the office of Representative in, or Delegate or Resident Commissioner to, the Congress;

`(2) the term `median household income' means, with respect to a congressional district, the median household income of that district, as determined by the Commission, using the most current data from the Bureau of the Census;

`(3) the term `major party' means, with respect to a House of Representatives general election--

`(A) a political party whose House of Representatives candidate in the preceding general election received, as the candidate of such party, 25 percent or more of the total number of popular votes received by all candidates for such office in the same precincts in which the general election will be held, or

`(B) a political party whose candidates in all elections for Federal office and all elections for the chief executive of the State involved occurring during the period described in section 503(d)(3) received 25 percent or more of the total number of popular votes received by all candidates in the same precincts in which the general election will be held in all such elections occurring during such period;

`(4) the term `third party' means, with respect to a House of Representatives general election, a political party which is not a major party;

`(5) the term `independent candidate' means, with respect to a House of Representatives general election, a House of Representatives candidate who is not the candidate of a major party or a third party, except that any such candidate who, in the preceding general election, received 25 percent or greater of the total number of popular votes received by all candidates for such office in the same precincts in which the general election will be held, shall be treated for purposes of this title as a major party candidate; and

`(6) the term `House of Representatives general election' means a general election for the office of Representative in, or Delegate or Resident Commissioner to, the Congress.'.

(b) Indexing of Amounts-

(1) IN GENERAL- Section 315(c) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441a(c)) is amended--

(A) in paragraph (1)(B)(i), by striking `or (h)' and inserting `or (h), or by title V,'; and

(B) in paragraph (1)(C), by striking `and (h)' and inserting `and (h), and under title V,'.

(2) BASE YEAR- Section 315(c)(2)(B) of such Act (2 U.S.C. 441a(c)(2)(B)) is amended--

(A) in clause (i), by striking `and' at the end;

(B) in clause (ii), by striking the period at the end and inserting `; and'; and

(C) by adding at the end the following new clause:

`(iii) for purposes of title V, calendar year 2005.'.

TITLE II--AMENDMENTS TO INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1986

SEC. 201. DESIGNATION OF OVERPAYMENTS AND CONTRIBUTIONS FOR GRASSROOTS GOOD CITIZENSHIP FUND.

(a) In General- Subchapter A of chapter 61 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to returns and records) is amended by adding at the end the following:

`PART IX--DESIGNATION OF OVERPAYMENTS AND CONTRIBUTIONS FOR GRASSROOTS GOOD CITIZENSHIP FUND

`Sec. 6097. Designation of overpayments for Grassroots Good Citizenship Fund

`SEC. 6097. DESIGNATION OF OVERPAYMENTS FOR GRASSROOTS GOOD CITIZENSHIP FUND.

`(a) In General- With respect to each taxpayer's return for the taxable year of the tax imposed by chapter 1, such taxpayer may designate that--

`(1) an amount that is not less than $1 of any overpayment of tax for such taxable year, and

`(2) any contribution which the taxpayer includes with such return,

shall be paid over to the Grassroots Good Citizenship Fund under section 506 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971.

`(b) Manner and Time of Designation- A designation under subsection (a) may be made with respect to any taxable year only at the time of filing the return of tax imposed by chapter 1 for such taxable year. Such designation shall be made on the 1st page of the return.

`(c) Overpayments Treated as Refunded- For purposes of this title, any portion of an overpayment of tax designated under subsection (a) shall be treated as being refunded to the taxpayer as of the last date prescribed for filing the return of tax imposed by chapter 1 (determined without regard to extensions) or, if later, the date the return is filed.'.

(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of parts for such subchapter A is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new item:

`Part IX. designation of overpayments and contributions for certain purposes relating to House of Representatives elections'.

(c) Effective Date- The amendments made by this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2005.

SEC. 202. INCREASE IN CORPORATE INCOME TAX ON TAXABLE INCOME ABOVE $10,000,000.

(a) In General- Subparagraph (D) of section 11(b)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking `35 percent' and inserting `35.1 percent'.

(b) Effective Date- The amendment made by subsection (a) shall apply to taxable years beginning after the date of the enactment of this Act.

(c) Use of Amounts Received- Amounts received by reason of the amendment made by subsection (a) shall be paid over to the Grassroots Good Citizenship Fund under section 506 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971.

TITLE III--INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURES

SEC. 301. BAN ON INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURES IN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTIONS.

Section 315 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441a) is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection;

`(k) No person may make any independent expenditure with respect to an election for the office of Representative in, or Delegate or Resident Commissioner to, the Congress.'.

SEC. 302. BAN USE OF NONFEDERAL FUNDS FOR CERTAIN DISBURSEMENTS.

Title III of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

`BAN ON USE OF NONFEDERAL FUNDS FOR CERTAIN DISBURSEMENTS

`SEC. 325.

`No person may make any disbursement in connection with a campaign for an election for the office of Representative in, or Delegate or Resident Commissioner to, the Congress, or any disbursement in connection with any public communication made for purposes of supporting, opposing, attacking, promoting, or mentioning a candidate in such an election, unless the funds used for the disbursement are subject to the limitations, prohibitions, and reporting requirements of this Act.'.

TITLE IV--PROVISIONS RELATING TO HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES PRIMARY ELECTIONS

SEC. 401. LIMITATION ON EXPENDITURES IN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTIONS OTHER THAN GENERAL ELECTIONS.

Section 315 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441a), as amended by section 301, is further amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:

`(l)(1) The maximum expenditures for a candidate for the office of Representative in, or Delegate or Resident Commissioner to, the Congress in any election other than a general election may not exceed 1/3 of the maximum applicable to the candidate in a general election under title V.

`(2) For purposes of limitations under this Act, any expenditure by a candidate referred to in paragraph (1), including an expenditure for the preparation, production, or presentation of communications through electronic media or in written form, shall, regardless of when the expenditure is made, be attributed to the appropriate general election, unless such expenditure is made solely for an election other than a general election.'.

TITLE V--CONSIDERATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT

SEC. 501. EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

(a) In General- If any provision of this Act or any amendment made by this Act is found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, the provisions of section 2908 (other than subsection (a)) of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 shall apply to the consideration of a joint resolution described in section 502 in the same manner as such provisions apply to a joint resolution described in section 2908(a) of such Act.

(b) Special Rules- For purposes of applying subsection (a) with respect to such provisions, the following rules shall apply:

(1) Any reference to the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives shall be deemed a reference to the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and any reference to the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate shall be deemed a reference to the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate.

(2) Any reference to the date on which the President transmits a report shall be deemed a reference to the date on which the Supreme Court finds a provision of this Act or an amendment made by this Act unconstitutional.

SEC. 502. CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT DESCRIBED.

For purposes of section 501, a joint resolution described in this section is a joint resolution proposing the following text as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States:

`Article --

`SECTION 1. Congress may provide for reasonable restrictions on contributions, expenditures, and other disbursements in campaigns for election for Federal office as necessary to protect the integrity of the electoral process.

`SECTION 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. No legislation enacted to enforce this article shall apply with respect to any election held after the last day of the year of the fourth Presidential election held after the date of the enactment of the legislation, unless the period in which such legislation is in effect is extended by an Act of Congress which is signed into law by the President.'.

TITLE VI--GENERAL EFFECTIVE DATE; SUNSET

SEC. 601. GENERAL EFFECTIVE DATE; SUNSET.

This Act and the amendments made by this Act--

(1) except as otherwise specifically provided, shall take effect January 1, 2007; and

(2) shall remain in effect until December 31, 2020.

end

I found it on thomas.loc.gov

Here's the pertinant section:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c109:1:./temp/~c109w9yq8c:e6449:


Lot's of boilerplate and legalese. I can't make anything definate out of it.

Wait, I think that's worse. It seems to me that it's saying that you get a percentage of the total amount available based on your percentage of the vote in a past federal election. In other words, a new party would get, um, none. Unless according to Sect 505, you get twenty percent of the people who voted in the last election to support your candidacy in a petition (in which case, I'm not sure you need the funding to win the seat). 10% gets you half.

Meanwhile, you are not allowed to pay people to go around and collect this massive number of signatures.

I would say that is pretty much an assault on democracy as we know it and a blatant effort to lock us into a two-party system.

I'll admit I could be misreading this, but as I read it, it does seem to say that unless I can get a massive number of votes using ONLY voluteers that I receive no funding.

Keep in mind in 2004, over 5 million votes were cast in IL. That means that I would have to get around 500,000 signatures to run against Obama in the next term. And that's just to get half funding. With no advertising or funds. Yep, that's possible. In Oz.

As to why CatTribe (and other Lawyers) support this particular Democrat created Travesty...

http://opensecrets.org/industries/indus.asp?Ind=K01

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y180/MrMisanthrope/indus_gif6.png

Nope. No connection between Lawyers and the Democrat lawmaking machine :rolleyes:

and THIS:

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y180/MrMisanthrope/reelect_img.png

is what it is all about. Incumbent Protection. The madder we get at them, the more they will rig the system to hold power.

Hahahahaha
What Do You Mean 3rd Party Threat???? They Aren't Even Serious Poloitical Parties, Most Of Them Never See The Light Of Day!

I do disagree with the 2 pary system, however, I like divine right fascism approach, as proposed by Mussolini

Wait, I think that's worse. It seems to me that it's saying that you get a percentage of the total amount available based on your percentage of the vote in a past federal election. In other words, a new party would get, um, none. Unless according to Sect 505, you get twenty percent of the people who voted in the last election to support your candidacy in a petition (in which case, I'm not sure you need the funding to win the seat). 10% gets you half.

Meanwhile, you are not allowed to pay people to go around and collect this massive number of signatures.

I would say that is pretty much an assault on democracy as we know it and a blatant effort to lock us into a two-party system.

I'll admit I could be misreading this, but as I read it, it does seem to say that unless I can get a massive number of votes using ONLY voluteers that I receive no funding.

Keep in mind in 2004, over 5 million votes were cast in IL. That means that I would have to get around 500,000 signatures to run against Obama in the next term. And that's just to get half funding. With no advertising or funds. Yep, that's possible. In Oz.
Understand too what the maximum expenditure rules do:

http://opensecrets.org/bigpicture/cost.asp

Odds of Beating a US House Incumbent
Based on Spending by the Challenger


In the 2002 elections...
Spending by Challenger Odds of Winning

Under $500,000 -------------- 0

$500,000-$1 million ---------- 8:1

$1 million or more ------------ 10:1


In the 2000 elections...
Spending by Challenger Odds of Winning

Under $500,000 --------------- 0

$500,000-$1 million ------------ 24:1

$1 million - $1.5 million --------- 15:1

Over $1.5 million ---------------- 3:1

In the 1994 elections...
Spending by Challenger Odds of Winning

Under $100,000 --------------- 0

$100,000-$249,999 ------------ 18:1

$250,000-$499,999 ------------ 6:1

$500,000 & over --------------- Even

----------------------------------------------

So, #1, make it almost impossible to raise money and #2, make it against the rules to spend more than the incumbent.

Lovely little scam.