With all the extremist views lately from the Repuglicrats and Demonicans I thought an equally extreme view that would bite both of their pockets was due ...

Story

WASHINGTON -- In light of a surprising new poll showing that 62 percent of Americans oppose taxpayer-funded conventions, Libertarians say the Democratic Party should immediately reimburse taxpayers for the $40 million cost of staging their Boston event.

"Let's hope the American people love this convention, because they paid for it," says Libertarian Party National Chair Mike Dixon. "There's something terribly wrong when two rich guys running for office can force ordinary Americans to pay for their televised advertising campaign.

"If John Kerry and John Edwards really care about the little guy, here's their chance to prove it: Give the money back."

The organizers of the Democratic and Republican national conventions have each received checks for $14.5 million from the Federal Election Commission to finance their events. That, combined with an estimated $25 million in security costs that each will incur, means that taxpayers will foot the bill for nearly $40 million for each event.

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

"In a Rasmussen poll released on Sunday, Americans made it clear that they want to kick politicians off the welfare wagon," Dixon said.

The survey, commissioned by the Libertarian Party, asked: "Should tax money be spent to stage the Democrat and Republican national presidential nominating conventions?" An overwhelming majority of 62 percent said no, 24 percent said yes and 14 percent weren't sure.

Libertarians are proposing two 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, pick up the entire tab.

Dixon said: "Former Democratic National Chairman Don Fowler is quoted as saying, 'Some of the best lobbying in the world is done at these conventions. It is a tremendous boon for special interests.'

"As long as Democrats and Republicans have something to sell, special interests will have something to buy. It's better to charge these fatcats up-front than to send taxpayers the bill for their weeklong bribe-a-thon."

Two: Make Kerry and Edwards pay the $40 million personally.

"Kerry's personal fortune is estimated at $60 million, and Edwards is a multi-millionaire trial lawyer, so both can afford it," Dixon noted.

"It's simply outrageous for these two wealthy politicians to bilk ordinary Americans to pay for an event at which they're scheming for yet more ways to bilk us if they get elected. They should have the decency to give the money back."

[ 08-08-2004, 08:19 PM: Message edited by: Night Stalker ]

Count me in too! I fully beleive that these hob knob settings are nothing more than feel good events, on my dime. Even though your dime pays my rhyme, it's my behind that's in the bind.
And what goes around should be equal. Let the Repub's figure out their marketing strategy as well!

<font color=skyblue>Preach it, Felix, preach it!

</font>

Well, of course I'd be all for the parties having to pay the bill for their party parties. But, wishful thinking is all that it is -- unless you're willing to pick up your gun and join the revolution with us, that is. ;) This country needs an enema.

Don't you already have one or two...or several. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

And why should only the rich be able to have conventions then? Having publically funded conventions, means that the poor guy who can't afford to throw one, can.

By insisting that Kerry and Edwards pay for the convention out of their own pocket, you are in effect demanding that only those who can afford to run for president, run. Meaning the rich will keep running the country.

I say, make all political advertising free, so that a guy with no money, can compete against the millionares/billionaires, Messers Kerry, Edwards, Bush and Cheney.

I would take out the security costs from the equation. Something I think the govt. should foot the bill for, seeing as how safegaurding the political process is one of it's responsibilities. This is not contrary to the Libertarian platform as I know it.

From the executive summary:
That leaves 14.5 million that I imagine the Libertarians could have taken as part of thier involvement in the public political process but chose not to. If they had chosen to take the money, they could have spent those private funds spreading the message the party stands for nationwide. Instead it was used on a little convention that didn't even get national media coverage.


14.5 million dollars- Compared to some of the other ways the Libs propose to shrink governemnt this is a drop in the bucket. I generally support the Libertarian platform but this seems much ado about nothing to me. I'll give them kudos for sticking to principles, but I have to wonder if small issues like this are worth it when there are much bigger fish to catch.