In the last ten days, the only bill in the U.S. House of Representatives on the subject of elections that has gained more than one co-sponsor is HR 1826, the bill to provide for non-discriminatory public funding for congressional candidates. It now has 86 co-sponsors, compared to 79 co-sponsors as of September 10.
One of the most surprising aspects of election law legislation in Congress this year is the failure of the bill to get a voting member in the U.S. House for the District of Columbia. Even strong Democratic Party majorities in both houses of Congress couldn’t save the bill, which bogged down because District of Columbia politicians were so opposed to an amendment to that bill to give more rights for gun-owners in D.C. This is the last session of Congress in which the bill can gain support from some Republicans on the basis that the same bill gives another seat to Utah. After this year’s session, that deal is useless, because Utah will be getting its fourth seat in 2011 anyway, based on the 2010 census results.
Richard, this reply is not related to the posting, but taking the liberty to ask why you did not give a report on the mayoral primary results in New York City, i.e., vote numbers, etc? Who won what primaries and who will be the nominees and co-nominees (endorsed candidates) of the various parties?
I believe the only party in New York city that held a mayoral primary was the Democratic Party. It was in all the newspapers that William Thompson easily beat his only opponent.
Is HR 1826 the Fair Elections Now Act?
Yes. I don’t use that bill’s title normally, because it is so vague it doesn’t tell people what the bill is about.
Do you think the bill is a good one? It seemed like it would benefit incumbents and possibly shut out third parties, although I’m not an expert at reading bills.
The bill treats all candidates alike, regardless of their partisan affiliation. So it stands as a very good example for the states, especially California and Connecticut, the two states where the legislatures have passed bills that set extra requirements for independent candidates.
Whether people are for or against public funding of candidates is a big philosophical question, and everyone can figure out their own feelings about that.
How does this bill handle fusion? Could someone gain double funding for running on a Working Families and a Democrat line?
I’ve scanned over this bill and there are certain requirements for third parties to receive public funding, but they don’t sound too steep.
However, the section on matching small donation funding doesn’t sound good at all. It doesn’t decrease the funding disparity between candidates, it multiplies it.
Sorry – D.C. is NOT a State.
14th Amdt, Sec. 2.
How many constitutional law EVIL INSANE MORONS (i.e. especially Donkeys) are in the current minority rule gerrymander Congress ??? — other than Pelosi and Reid ???
The federal bill is candidate-centered. It doesn’t make any difference if the candidate is the nominee of two parties, or one party, or is just an independent candidate. The candidate qualifies by receiving a certain number of small donations.