House Seeks Removal of “Public Funded” Presidential Election Fund – Democrats Hyperbolically Oppose Citing Increased Corporate Funding

As Democrats Decry the Republican Inspired Demise of Public Funding, Perhaps a Refresher is in Order - image Barbados Free Press

The House has voted to rescind the voluntary taxpayer funded “public fund” for Presidential Campaigns which was instituted after the Watergate scandal , needless to say, Democrats are now rebuking that concept. (Personal Liberty) On the one hand, the vote will eliminate the optional contributions made by taxpayers on their annual returns, which said funds have significantly decreased over the past two decades. On the other hand, Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign declined to take the public funds, opting instead to take funding from all sources. The premise of the objection by Democrats is that without the “public funding”, corporations could gain influence over candidates, however, when one looks at the projected savings of $617 million over 10 years, and compares that to monies spent by the Obama campaign (and the McCain campaign in 2008), it is a mere pittance. In addition, the program is voluntary – and the obvious decline in contributions by taxpayers makes it apparent that the public is clearly not invested in allowing the government to fund campaigns; rather the preference may be to allow individuals (as well as corporations) to donate to campaigns of choice. In addition, the point is rather moot as the Supreme Court had weighed in on limits place on corporate donations in 2010:

”The court effectively struck down restrictions on corporations and unions for how and when they spend money on ads and other political communications during campaigns.“

(ABC News)

It is, in a word, ridiculous partisan objections on the part of the Democrats, and one might add hypocritical hyperbole. If the concern over corporate interference in elections was such a priority – perhaps while the party in question enjoyed six years in power, might have put more effort into practicing what they preach considering donations from corporations and unions helped the Obama campaign push federal election spending to new heights.

While the new Republican controlled house attempts to chip away at out of control government spending, there should be bi-partisan support for projects that are clearly as waste of time. Understanding that the 2012 elections are literally in process, with Obama’s Campaign team assembled in Chicago, and the need for issues upon which to campaign, one would think the President might have understood that a major shift in the political landscape in 2010, was not accomplished by one party alone – the Republican’s, with the help of disgruntled Independent voters as well as, one can imagine, moderate Democrats swept into power on the mandate of reducing government waste. Although this is one small instance, it is a sign of what is to come, and one can predict, that the general public won’t be buying that particular brand of snake oil.

For a point of reference: Open Secrets.org where the top donors to Obama’s 2088 campaign include: University of California, Goldman Sachs, Harvard University, Microsoft, Google, Citigroup, JP Morgan Chase, Time Warner – and the beat goes on.

Therefore, to recap, while Obama declined to take advantage of public funding for his election campaign, allowing Corporations to invest in his campaign, Democrats find the thought of Republican’s removing the option to be the path to corporate intervention in elections.