Kucinich, Hunter Certified for Primary Season Matching Funds

On December 20, the Federal Election Commission determined that Duncan Hunter and Dennis Kucinich qualify for primary season matching funds. The FEC also set the amounts that each of the 7 candidates will receive next year in the FEC’s first payment of such funds.

The amounts for Democrats will be: John Edwards $8,800,000; Chris Dodd $1,400,000; Joe Biden $857,000; Dennis Kucinich $100,000. For Republicans, John McCain $5,800,000; Tom Tancredo $2,100,000; Duncan Hunter $100,000.

These leading candidates have not sought matching funds: Republicans Rudy Guiliani, Mike Huckabee, Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, and Fred Thompson; and Democrats Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and Bill Richardson.

Although Tom Tancredo withdrew on December 20, it does not necessarily follow that he can’t receive primary season matching funds, although the issue is unclear. If he had waited until January, he clearly would have been entitled to the funds.


Comments

Kucinich, Hunter Certified for Primary Season Matching Funds — 13 Comments

  1. Well McCain is now officially joins Tancredo and Hunter in the third-tier category.

    Tancredo – out

    Hunter – next

    McCain – no surrender until he’s squeezed the tax-payer for every posible cent, then out

  2. I think it’s unfair that you need rasie money for candidates. I think every candidates should have fixed amount to work with, and that’s it. It’s about who has the most money wins or corprate media wants a candidate to win. Dennis Kucinich is the best candidate but it is sad that the media does not give him equal time or no time at all. I hope it changes someday.

  3. Darryl: I think we can change avoid the 12th Amendment loophole by proposing the following: have each party nominate 2 candidates, the voters would be given 2 votes (1 for President and 1 for VP)and presto. The electors (from the Electoral College) still cast 2 votes, 1 for Pres and 1 for VP. With this idea, all the candidates would fight for the top 2 spots. The idea of a ticket is just useless, have the candidates win the office. However, there could be an exception where if a ticket does get an absolute majority of the votes, both candidates would get electoral votes. Plus you’d avoid a ticket with a weak Pres candidate but strong VP candidate (which could make it seem counterproductive for the ticket). Third parties and independents would do extremely better I think.

  4. I’d actually prefer that voters cast a ballot for individual electors, instead of a bloc of electors. There are two ways this could be done:
    the first method would be using the Congressional Method, whereby you vote for 3 Electors, 1 from your district & 2 At-Large;
    the 2nd method would be to cast a ballot for individual Electors all of whom would be At-Large, casting a vote for upto the total number of Electors for your State.

  5. I’m assuming that with the first idea, you’re given 3 votes and can do the following: give all 3 votes to electors of the same party, give 2 votes to 2 electors of party A and 1 vote to 1 elector of party B or give 1 vote to 1 elector of party A, B & C. With the second idea, if your state has say 55 electoral votes, you’re given 55 votes and must vote for 55 different electors (and you can’t give any elector more than 1 vote). Is this correct?

  6. Party politics and loyalties sacrifice integrity because abortion has nothing to do with gun control or any of the other issues the parties are divided on. These stereo types simply do not fit the people as individuals. In 1776 America declared it’s independence. When will the people do the same? Be real, be independent. Pay attention, Democracy is rising.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.