Political Parties Should Have to Pay for the Primaries
By ParaTed2k
@ParaTed2k (22940)
Sheboygan, Wisconsin
February 15, 2008 12:10am CST
Primary elections have only one purpose. That is for the members to help choose the nominee for their party. They are private events, run by, and for, the parties.
Since they aren't government events, and they insist that the government has no say on how primaries will be run, they should have to foot the bill for them.
Why should the taxpayers continue to fund private Republican or Democrat events. Especially when you consider that the government doesn't pay for any other party's means of choosing a nominee.
2 people like this
4 responses
@lancingboy (1385)
• United States
15 Feb 08
I agree with you 100%. If the parties want to get money, let them raise the funds with fundraisers and donations through people in their own party. The taxpayer dollars should be used for more important things like education, research of various things (like science, medicine, ect.) and keeping the country's streets safe.
3 people like this
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
15 Feb 08
Exactly! Primaries aren't about picking who can and can't run for president, they are strictly partisan events. Let the parties raise funds from their own membership.
The general election should be funded by the taxpayers though.
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
15 Feb 08
I sure agree with you about where the tax dollars should go but unfortunately it's the ones running for election that decide how to spend the money. I wouldn't want it to just be the party big-wigs making their choices without any say from the people whatsoever. There would be nothing to keep them under control then!
Annie
@vera5d (4005)
• United States
15 Feb 08
personally, i don't think a campaign should cost more than a few thousand dollars...a website, a voice, and a place to sleep across America should be all that you need. I'm sure supporters would be willing to open their homes to let the candidate they support have a place to stay while touring.
It makes me sick to see money wasted. People work too hard to have nothing...
2 people like this
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
15 Feb 08
So candidates should become beggars instead of paying working people for their services?
1 person likes this
@cyntrow (8523)
• United States
16 Feb 08
I agree. I'm a registered independent and I cannot vot in any primary in my state. Yet, i still have to pay for it. On the other hand, my parents, who have no children still have to pay for schools and my teen son, who has no car still has to pay for highways. Can we dismiss only the electorial system and no other?
1 person likes this
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
16 Feb 08
It's not a matter of "dismissing" one government expense and not the others. The fact is primary elections aren't government events they are private, party events.
As an independent, there is no reason for you to be helping decide who the republicans or democrats nominate. That's like letting Ford Motor Company employees decide who the new GM CEO should be.
But that's my point also. The parties hold the primaries to decide who their nominee will be. So if it's their primary, why should taxpayers fund them? Especially when the taxpayers don't pay for the "3rd" party primaries.
They have had it both ways for far too long.
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
15 Feb 08
I don't think of them as being only "for" the parties since we, the voters, need an opportunity to participate in the election process so in that way since it does benefit the taxpayers I guess we should have to pay at least part of it, shouldn't we? I don't agree with the system entirely, in fact I disagree with a lot of our election rules but it's the system we have and I'd hate to see anything done that gave us even less of a voice than we have. I'm more for complete public funding of campaigns and doing away with all the fund-raising and donations. That way the winners wouldn't owe anyone other than the public, which is who they're supposed to work for, isn't it?
Annie
@cyntrow (8523)
• United States
16 Feb 08
I hate to disagree with you annie, but does that mean that since I am a registered independant and cannot participate in primary voting in my state, should I be exempt from paying taxes during this time? I know it is not an option. That would be silly. But the fact remains; where is my voice?? and the voice of the green party and the voice of the liberatarian party and the voice of the communist party. We can't vote in the primaries, but we have to pay for it.
2 people like this
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
18 Feb 08
That's a good point. The whole idea of only the two major parties is flawed, IMO, but I guess it's not likely to be changed anytime soon. I'm not sure what the answer is but I'd really like to see things change to the point where it's not the candidates who raise the most money that are the only ones to have a fair chance.
Annie
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
15 Feb 08
In theory you are right, unfortunately the parties running these events can pick and choose what votes to count. Taxpayers in Florida and Michigan are paying for democratic primaries that are effectively meaningless since they won't count. As a taxpayer, I had absolutely no say in the matter.
2 people like this
