[WestMALocals] Fwd: Bill Would Ban Third Party Congressional Campaigns

[Owen Broadhurst]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Owen Broadhurst <owen.broadhurst at gmail.com>
Date: Feb 8, 2006 12:32 PM
Subject: Bill Would Ban Third Party Congressional Campaigns
To: needtoknow at green-rainbow.org, Discussion List for StateCom members <
statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org>

On Feb 7, 2006, at 8:49 PM, Scott McLarty wrote:

> Ballot Access News
> Edited by Richard Winger
> http://ballot-access.org/2006/02/02/public-funding-of-congressional-
> campaigns/
>
> Public Funding of Congressional Campaigns
> February 2nd, 2006
>
> Congressman David Obey's public funding of
> congressional campaigns bill is HR 4694. Nominees
> of parties that had  would get full public funding. Also,
> independent candidates who had averaged 25% would
> also get full public funding. All others would be
> required to submit petitions signed by 10% of the
> last vote cast, for partial funding; and 20%
> petitions for full funding. Candidates not
> qualifying for partial funding would be barred
> from spending any privately raised money. The
> co-sponsors are these 7 Democrats: Rosa DeLauro
> of Connecticut, Barney Frank and James McGovern
> of Massachusetts, Henry Waxman and Bob Filner of
> California, Steve Israel of New York, and Tim
> Ryan of Ohio.
>
>
> *  *  *  *  *
>
>
> St. Louis Oracle (web log)
> http://stloracle.blogspot.com/2006/02/bill-would-ban-3rd-party-
> campaigns-for.html
> Sunday, February 05, 2006
>
> Bill would ban 3rd-party campaigns for Congress
>
> Eight Democratic congressmen have filed a bill
> that combines a laudable goal – public funding of
> congressional campaigns – with a vicious attack
> on freedom of speech. The bill would effectively
> eliminate virtually all congressional campaigns
> by independent and third-party candidates.
>
> The bill, HR 4694, would provide public financing
> for both Democrats and Republicans in most
> districts. But Ballot Access News reports that
> candidates not qualifying for funding would not
> only receive no government funds, but would also
> be barred from spending any privately raised
> money. No government money and no private money
> means that a non-qualifying candidate would be
> prohibited from spending any money at all, not
> one red cent. Not even a business card with the
> candidate's name and office sought would be legal
> under the bill!
>
> Requirements for qualifying for funding would be
> relatively easy for the major parties but almost
> impossible for independent and third-party
> candidates. The bill would provide public funding
> for nominees of parties that had averaged 25% of
> the vote for U.S. House in that district over the
> last two elections. Independent candidates who
> had averaged 25% would also get full public
> funding, but unlike party candidates, only the
> specific individual who previously got those
> votes would qualify. All others would be required
> to submit petitions signed by 20% of the last
> vote cast for full funding, and 10% for partial
> funding. For example, in Missouri's 2nd
> congressional district, a candidate with a party
> that won less than 25% of the vote in the last
> two elections would need nearly 70,000 signatures
> to qualify for the public funding that her/his
> Democratic and Republican opponents would get
> automatically, and only signatures from the 2nd
> District would count. Nearly 35,000 signatures
> would be required in order to allow the candidate
> to spend anything at all on the campaign.
>
> In certain districts where a single party is
> dominant, the bill would eliminate campaigns by
> the district's second party as well. Not
> surprisingly, Democrats (who propose this bill)
> hold Republican opponents to below 25% in more
> districts than Republicans do the same to
> Democrats. If the bill were law today, a
> Republican campaign in Lacy Clay's 1st District
> would be illegal without a massive petition
> drive. In Roy Blunt's 7th District, Democrats
> would be less than a percentage point away from
> the same fate.
>
> The offensive bill is sponsored by Rep. David
> Obey (D-WI) and co-sponsored by fellow Democrats
> Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut, Barney Frank and
> James McGovern of Massachusetts, Henry Waxman and
> Bob Filner of California, Steve Israel of New
> York, and Tim Ryan of Ohio. So much for standing
> up the for the little guy.
>
> The Oracle wonders if the sponsors' support for
> publicly financed elections is genuine, or if
> this legislation is merely a disguised attempt to
> discredit the whole concept.