Republicans should reimburse taxpayers for convention costs

PsychoSword

Moderator
http://www.lp.org/press/archive.php?function=view&record=671

September 1, 2004

Republicans should reimburse taxpayers for convention costs

WASHINGTON -- If George Bush is really a compassionate conservative, as the Republican Party claimed again on Tuesday night, he should prove it by reimbursing taxpayers for the $40 million cost of the New York convention, the Libertarian Party says.

"Shame on President Bush for forcing ordinary Americans to pay for this weeklong infomercial masquerading as a political convention," said Michael Dixon, national chair of the Libertarian Party. "We're challenging the Bush-Cheney ticket to get off the welfare wagon, and give the money back."

The organizers of the Republican National Convention received a $14.5 million check earlier this year from the Federal Election Commission to finance the New York event. That subsidy, combined with an estimated $25 million in security costs, means that taxpayers will foot the bill for nearly $40 million.

The Libertarian convention, held over Memorial Day weekend in Atlanta, was financed entirely with private funds.

"The Republicans and Democrats have every right to hold these non-conventions for which the nominees are chosen in advance, but they don't have the right to send taxpayers the bill," said Dixon, adding that the Libertarians asked the Democratic Party in July to refund the subsidy from its Boston convention.

Dixon cited a July 25 Rasmussen poll indicating that a majority of Americans oppose taxpayer-financed conventions.

The survey of 1,000 adults, commissioned by the Michael Badnarik for President campaign, asked: "Should tax money be spent to stage the Democrat and Republican national presidential nominating conventions?" A majority of 62 percent said no, 24 percent said yes and 14 percent weren't sure.

Dixon suggested two common-sense alternatives to taxpayer-financed conventions.

One: let corporate sponsors and other donors, who already gave a record $103.5 million to the two major parties' host committees, pay the entire tab.

"Unfortunately, the lobbyists and special interests have the most to gain from these weeklong bribe-a-thons, so why shouldn't they pay for them?" he asked.

Two: Let the Republican National Committee, and even some of the wealthy politicians themselves, help pay for the event.

"Vice President Dick Cheney and dozens of Senators and Representatives are millionaires many times over, thanks in part to their years of government 'service,' " Dixon said. "It's both outrageous and arrogant for these rich politicians to demand that ordinary Americans pay for a convention whose only purpose is to get the Republican president re-elected.

"The truth is that George Bush isn't really a compassionate conservative; he just plays one on TV. In real life he's a political welfare queen who's just shaken down taxpayers for $40 million."
 
Fine with me. But let's also give the Republicans a percentage of all of the dollars the delegates are spending for hotels, theatre tickets, restaurants, cabs, trinkets, etc. Think of it as a "finders fee."
 
The great thing about the first amendment...

is that anyone can express themselves, no matter how idiotic the point they are trying to make.

The even greater thing about it, is that you don't have to pay attention to the idiots.
 
Hmmm. What happened to 'personal responsibility'? You play, you pay.

As a start, at least pay back the money from the Election fund. The security part may be arguable, but there is no way that taxpayer money should pay for PRIVATE organization's activities.
 
I think that you're a little naive if you believe that the Reps and Dems didn't pay through the nose for the 'privilidge' of holding conventions in New York and Boston respectively.
 
As a start, at least pay back the money from the Election fund. The security part may be arguable, but there is no way that taxpayer money should pay for PRIVATE organization's activities.
Can we agree to do this after the taxpayers have their representatives recind all of the idiotic laws that regulate said "PRIVATE organization's activities"?
 
I think that you're a little naive if you believe that the Reps and Dems didn't pay through the nose for the 'privilidge' of holding conventions in New York and Boston respectively.


gburner, it's not about how big the total tab was. It's about who paid it. If ANY PART of it came from taxpayer pockets, that's wrong. (Again, leaving the security part out of it.)

If it cost the Republican Party 6 BILLION, and $15 million came from the Election Fund, that's 15 million dollars WRONG.


Fred, wrong laws do not an entitlement make.
 
Fred, wrong laws do not an entitlement make.
Never said they did. It's just that I believe that private should mean private. Not regulated, and so filled with loopholes and mind-blowing convoluted BS that the taxpayers end up giving out entitlements. There should be one rule on campaign finance, and that is a public record of who gave what to whom and when. What the partys do with that money after that, is their business. Repubs or Demonrats, or the Watermelon Party can't finance on their own after that, too bad so sad.
 
Agreed! But I'll add to it.

Not only should the gummit not be allowed to regulate them, the gummit should be forbidden to take ANY official notice of them. That means NO primaries paid for out of public funds, NO mention of parties on any ballots or any other gummit election material, NO "Majority leader" etc., etc.

Oh, and did I mention that conventions should not be subsidized by taxpayers?

:D
 
To infer or to state that taxed monies should not pay for our election process is to infer that we should not have them as we do now.

There is a system and a place where that is done: straight across the pond from NYC. In a few years, natural selection will "elect" a new supreme ruler for jolly old England: the adulterous, drunken, (and other adjectives not fit for mixed company) Prince Charles himself shall assume the head of state for England and the head of the Anglican church as well.

As much as I despised, loathed, and was ashamed of Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, and Lyndon B. Johnson, . . . at least they did work to get where they got, . . . even if it took taxpayer money to put them there. Heck of a lot better system than the British alternative.

May God bless,
Dwight

PS: Almost forgot the most important point: since the demogogues had their convention first and spent first, . . . shouldn't they be the ones to pony up their check first for the "tax" money spent on their tomfoolery: Ketchup Kerry and the ambulance chaser?
 
To infer or to state that taxed monies should not pay for our election process is to infer that we should not have them as we do now.

Well, I didn't infer or state that tax monies should not pay for our election process.


What I said was that tax monies should not pay for PRIVATE ORGANIZATIONS to choose the person that those PRIVATE ORGANIZATIONS will offer to the voting public as the candidate who is being promoted by that PRIVATE ORGANIZATION.

The problem is that you are confusing the two. Don't feel bad - we are well conditioned to think that party primaries are an integral part of selecting our government representatives.

They are not.

We don't have a "two party system" as most people understand it. There is nothing in the Constitution that recognizes political parties, and nothing in the American system which makes them necessary. In fact, our Founding Fathers despised and feared them. The only reason they didn't outlaw them is that doing so would have violated the right of free association. They hoped that Americans would rise above such pettiness and simply choose representatives based on their individual values and character.

We failed the test, badly. Parties started up almost immediately.


But the reality still is, that a political party is a private organization, NOT a part of our government. Selecting a candidate and promoting him for office is something that this private organization does to advance its own interests. It is NOT properly a part of our election process. The fact that we have become conditioned to it does not make it right or essential.

In fact, in some places the candidate is selected by party delegates at a party convention, withut any input from general, tax funded election apparatus.

This is how it ought to be EVERYWHERE and for every office.



Oh, did I mention that political parties are PRIVATE ORGANIZATIONS?

:D
 
Well, I don't know about the federal expenditures, but as to those expended by the State of NY and the City of NYC, that was their choice - it was a gratuitious gift on their part to foot the bill for security etc, in order to get the convention dollars - simply a free market deal. No issue there. As to the feds (FEC) giving out our money, of course it should be stopped. The FEC should be eliminated, along with all campaign finance laws other than FULL DISCLOSURE of donors, and let the free market pay for elections as the 1st amendment intended. As for the federal security costs, hmmm, that's a tougher one - I think that that just has to be chalked up to the current terrorism climate. But screw the people of NY - they invited the convention there.
 
But screw the people of NY - they invited the convention there

"We" didn't invite anyone. Nobody asked me and I sure as hell don't remember voting. All the convention did was tie up traffic for a week and bring the lunatics out of the woodwork. And all for naught; the Big Apple will swing liberal no matter what circus you parade through town. Bringing the RNC to NY is like bringing a roast suckling pig to a bar mitzvah.
 
To infer or to state that taxed monies should not pay for our election process is to infer that we should not have them as we do now.
One tiny little note (please don't take offense, this is a common mistake that many people make) one can infer from given information, what you probably meant was "To imply or to state..." rather than using infer.

Please feel free to correct any of my many mistakes. I think it is better if we communicate as clearly as possible so that our message is heard - and wherever possible - taken to heart. :)
 
The FEC should be eliminated, along with all campaign finance laws other than FULL DISCLOSURE of donors, and let the free market pay for elections as the 1st amendment intended.

The FEC has a legitimate function in carrying out and policing Federal elections, I think, but FINANCING campaigns is none of its business, so we are very much agreed on that part.

Oh, and that 'full disclosure' business? The penalties for anything less than full and complete compliance should be draconian.
 
Back
Top