HR 1826, the bill in the U.S. House of Representatives to provide for public funding for congressional candidates, now has 156 co-sponsors. It gained three co-sponsors during the last two weeks. No other election law bill pending in Congress has gained any co-sponsors during June.
Public financing of ALL political campaigns is a MUST if we are ever to get special interest control away from our election process. I know many “knee-jerkers” are quick to retort, “I don’t want my taxes paying for the campaign of someone who I am opposed to philosophically.” Perhaps not, but money you have paid for goods or services received from these privately owned special interests,(i.e.,banks, businesses, attorneys, etc.) are often used to give as a campaign donations to someone whose philosophy you oppose. So what is the difference?
Many 3rd partisans and independents have this “narrow,” “knee-jerk” reaction. At least with Public financing, there is the chance those candidates you favor philosophically, will likewise receive public funding.
And for those who say such public funding is “unconstitutional” or “unprincipled,” let me say, some people are so “principled” they are paralyzed.” Public financing will be only a “drop in the bucket” compared to the money Congress already spends on programs – most of them wasteful.
Wake Up! Get into the real world. Stop living in the past. Public financing WILL give 3rd partisans and independents a better opportunity of getting their messages out. Don’t cut off your nose to spite your face!
I hope Congress will pass this legislation and the President will sign it into law – even though it only applies to Congressional candidates.
Article One; Section Two of the Constitution.
The Founding Fathers set up a House of Representatives with districts of 30,000 people. Anyone could run for and be elected to Congress with a campaign budget of a few barrels of beer or whiskey.
All it takes is a majority vote of the House to restore democracy by expanding the size of the chamber. If 4,000 people can attend a high school graduation or PTA meeting then there should be no problem with a House of 4,000 members. How hard is it to press a buttom and vote yes or no?
Can you imagine a House of Representatives with that many members? Actually, with 300 million people here, there could conceivably be up to 10,000 members.
Article One; Section Three of the Constitution reads; “…the number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand, but each state shall have at least one Representative…”
Our Founding Fathers knew this number of people represented by each Representative would eventually have go be changed, but they never invisioned a nation of 300 million citizens – even if they still perceived that many of them would be non-voting slaves.
A House of Representatives of 4,000 members? That’s not quite feasible or practical. But a House of Representatives of say, 1,000 members, yes.
To attempt to represent 300 million people with only 435 members in the House of Representatives is a mockery of the word “represent.” Here is one issues ALL 3rd partisans and Independents could unite on. Other than the professional Democrat and Republican politicians, I don’t know anyone who could seriously argue 435 members of the House of Representatives is a sufficient ratio to 300 million citizens.
Come on, Libertarians, Greens, Peace & Freedomites, Constitutionalists, and Independents of all stripes, let’s make this THE signature issue of our respective political agendas.
With a House of Representatives of 1000 members, it is more likely a 3rd partisan and even more likely an Independent would be elected!
Just hope it can be amended to apply fairly to *ALL* Congressional candidates. . . .