My Proposal-Tax Campaign Contributions

[Hipcheck]

The Govt finds way to tax almost all incoming and outgoing revenue from private citizens-why shouldnt politicians campaign contributions be taxed as well? Dont they have some responsibility to pay their "fair share?" I think Obama raised 50 million and Hillary raised 35 million. Not sure what McCain has in his coffers but Im sure its sizable.

The money would be going back to the same govt coffers that elected politicians will then be able to use for the so called public good once elected. Wouldnt this be a Win/Win for all....well all except the guy whose breaking the bank spending millions upon millions to get elected to a position that pays 200K annually.

[go]

I thought you were anti-tax. HAHA.

No this is terrible. Banning campaign contributions and making campaigns publicly financed is the best idea.

[jom]

Originally Posted by go

No this is terrible. Banning campaign contributions and making campaigns publicly financed is the best idea.

I agree the best idea might be pubic finance but I don't see how Hip's idea is terrible. Govt draconian tax laws help put many small businesses out on the street but this idea "terrible"? You've got to be kidding.

But, yeah, something has to be done about the heavy influence of large campaign donors who later get some nice "favors" if their candidate wins. This is an atrocious way to run the country and it happens at ALL levels by ALL parties. What a joke.

jom

[Hipcheck]

Originally Posted by jom

I agree the best idea might be pubic finance but I don't see how Hip's idea is terrible. Govt draconian tax laws help put many small businesses out on the street but this idea "terrible"? You've got to be kidding.

But, yeah, something has to be done about the heavy influence of large campaign donors who later get some nice "favors" if their candidate wins. This is an atrocious way to run the country and it happens at ALL levels by ALL parties. What a joke.

jom

Thanks for backing me. It would also be illuminating to how politicians who favor higher taxes on businesses and citizens would react when that same principle specifically effects their future endeavors.

At this point I may even back go's idea. Almost anything would be a better alternative then the current system. If Ron Paul or Ralph Nader had an equal footing with the Politico Big Boys it may be a difference between them having no chance in hell to having a small chance in hell.

[Hipcheck]

Originally Posted by go

I thought you were anti-tax. HAHA.

So you support raising taxes on businesses and citizens but not on political contributions from fat cat contributers?

[jom]

Originally Posted by Hipcheck

So you support raising taxes on businesses and citizens but not on political contributions from fat cat contributers?

I wonder whether the campaigners have to pay SALES TAX on air time they buy (for example). Probably...but I'm not sure....

jom

[Hipcheck]

Originally Posted by jom

I wonder whether the campaigners have to pay SALES TAX on air time they buy (for example). Probably...but I'm not sure....

jom

Its a great question...I would be curious to know as well.

[KingsJohn/Obediah]

Campaign finance reform isn't going to happen. Let's not kid ourselves

I think this is a great idea

[jom]

Originally Posted by KingsJohn/Obediah

Campaign finance reform isn't going to happen.

Gee, I can't imagine why not.

I just can't understand how some don't see this type of fund raising as having serious conflict of interest issues. I guess it's a rights issue...freedom of speech.

jom

[KingsJohn/Obediah]

Originally Posted by jom

I guess it's a rights issue...freedom of speech.

jom

If I am not mistaken the supreme court has already ruled that

[SicSemprTyranis]

The one good thing about this money raised is that it all gets spent in the United States on United States products and services (airtime, labor, mailings etc...)

Publicly financed campaigns raise a thorny question...who qualifies for the money. If its just for the general election, then you have the same issues manifest themselves at the primary level and if you add it to encompass both, well then why couldn't I run and get money. You create a slippery slope.

I agree the system is a broken one, but I really don't know what could be done to fix it...

[GoKings57]

I'm not a big fan of publicly financing the elections. Aside from SST's point about who would qualify, why should we finance a bunch of douchebags who want nothing more than to enrich themselves at our expense?

My optimum campaign finance reform would be for donations to be restricted only to individuals who possess a Social Security Number. That way, no corporations, lobbyists, unions or PAC's can exert undue influence on any politician. It has the added bonus that the candidates whose messages resonate the best with the public will end up getting the funds, not the ones who suck up the most to big business/special interests.

[SnoochieBoochie]

I think the technicality is that its not "income". C'mon, we need a CPA to chime in. I think the IRS looks at it just like church tithes. Its not taxed going in, but the services that are bought bear the tax.

I hate the idea of publicly funded campaign contributions. Not that the current system is great, but can you imagine how many people will try to abuse publicly funded campaign monies. I'm running for the Staamkos for president party. Can I please have 8 million dollars?

[SnoochieBoochie]

BTW, I agree with GoKings57's thoughts on the SSN. That would also stop foreign influences.

[chu gar]

I'm sure if we did this, no one would want to get into politics anymore, because you couldn't make millions doing it, and then only people who truly wanted the job would run...wait a minute!