It seems the President is more then filling to take the $$$ but not contribute to it. If he is so opposed to public financing of elections he should not take the money, but then I've been told I have an over-developed sense of ethics.

----------------------------------------------
White House press briefing

Q Several questions on fundraising. First of all, why is it that the President checks the "no" box? Does he have a philosophical rejection, or what's his reason for doing that?

MR. FLEISCHER: No, I think the President views campaign funding as a voluntary matter, as the American people do, where people want to support the candidate of their choice. We have on the presidential level a somewhat mixed system where there is some level of taxpayer support. And the President, as you know, in the primary is not going to accept any taxpayer support, he will raise funds privately -- which means he will get support as the American people see fit to give it.

Q But why does he -- why does he check the "no" box?

MR. FLEISCHER: Because I think the President's approach is that from him, personally, that he believes in personally financing the causes in which he believes.

Q But he does accept public funding for the general election.

MR. FLEISCHER: That's correct.

Q Yet he is not contributing to it by checking that box. Isn't there a disconnect?

MR. FLEISCHER: That's the way our system works. If he contributed to it, he'd have three more dollars.

Q But you won't answer the question why --


MR. FLEISCHER: I think I just did.

This is just making a big stink about somantics. It's a hand wave. The interviewer is just causing trouble - looking to make a headline. It really doesn't matter if the President (don't care who holds the title) "checks the box" to contribute to his own re-election campaign. It's his money. 0+0= ----------------> 0 big supprise! In other words 3 - 3 = 0. He's going to spend way more than $3 out pocktet ayway.

In the case where the fund would go to a new Pres, well it's his money and should be free to support anyone he chooses. I don't see any hypocracy by with holding his $3.

Now, personally, I don't think that that should be an option on tax returns. I never contribute. On a different issue is the whole political contribution conflict of intrest that has sold away our Constitution - but that is a whole other can of ugly worms that I will not open here.

<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">
Perhaps he doesnt check the box because he is already contributing a hell of a lot more than $3 and doesnt even want to give $3 to any possible opponent??

What a whiney thing to get aggravated about sheesh :rolleyes:
</font>

Not whiney at all. It points to the underlying ethics of people like Bush. They are more then willing to take money from the government, but do not want to pay into the system.

But it's zero gain. Like I said, I could care less if it's Bush, Clinton, or Howdy Dudy. The Pres donnating to the Pres Fund doesn't make sense. Agruably you could say that the President contributing to the Presidental Fund is a loss, since inefficient government workers now have to process that $3 and waste tax money - twice. We actually should be enraged if the President donnates to this fund as a waste of our taxes.

Not whiney at all. It points to the underlying ethics of people like Bush. They are more then willing to take money from the government, but do not want to pay into the system. </font>[/QUOTE]<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">
Say that again? he pays waaaaay more into the system than $3 so why should he put that $3 in? if he puts that in, he gives $1.50 to his opposition...anyone would be a stupid ass for helping their opponents. Oh some Dems may do it for publicity to try and drum up propaganda but it is all just BS...and of course you know it [img]smile.gif[/img] </font>