Stand up for our system. HR 4694 is a cynical attempt by some members of Congress to create a permanent two-party system.

Green Party leaders have called on Congress to reject this House bill that combines public funding of congressional campaigns with a scheme to virtually ban third party and independent candidates from such races.

HR 4694 would grant full public funding to nominees of parties (i.e., Democrats and Republicans) that had averaged 25% of the vote for House races in a given district in the last two elections.

All others (third party and independent candidates) would be required to submit petitions signed by 10% of the last vote cast for partial funding, and 20% petitions for full funding. Candidates who don't qualify for funding would be barred from spending privately raised money on their campaigns.

In some districts, 10% or 20% can mean 35,000 or 70,000 or more signatures -- numbers far too high for any candidate to collect.

A wide range of choices on the ballot gives us the power to vote for the candidate who best represents our interests and ideals. Reducing the field to a choice between Democrat and Republican is an assault on our rights as voters.


You too may participate in this letter-to-the-editor writing campaign to stop HR 4694 here:

http://www.democracyinaction.com/dia...paign_KEY=1726

Thanks for the info man!

This is VERY disturbing news.

I guess it's getting too hard to convience the American Public that the
REP&DEM Parties are worthy of the peoples votes.
So now they have to elliminate any competition by sneaking in laws, that the
people don't know about or can't vote for/against!

Like I said (about a Million times) The REPS&DEMS have a monopoly on the USA.

I think more than a million..

Yeah more than a million. I'm even starting to get sick of saying it!

But that doesn't make it any less true!

I actually took the time to read this bill. I find it rather interesting. Congress is attempting to actually limit the amount that can be used to fund campaigns. We all talk about the money that is used during campaigns, well this would therefore limit campaign spending to 1.5 million dollars, and that is only in the districts that have the highest median incomes. Other districts the maximum would be less. The equation goes something like 2/3 of the percentage difference times the 1.5 million, subtracted from the 1.5 million. Without having actual numbers it is difficult to follow to say the least.

The funding is limited for third party or independent candidates because it limits it to the ratio of the percentage of the votes that previous third party candidates or independents received. But that is a total of all candidates.

It does allow for increases in the funding by allowing for candidates submit petitions. For a major party candidate a requirement of 20% exists in which the funding would be increased to match the highest funded candidate. For a third party candidate, the requirement is for 10% in which they would be eligible to be increased to 50% of the highest funded candidate.

Ultimately this bill would limit what a candidate can spend, and further restrict the amount that state parties can give to the candidate. Gone would be the hustle and bustle of raising money for re-election, no more fundraising while in office. Imagine that, a true campaign finance reform.

By the way, if for some reason, an independent or third party candidate received greater than 25% of the vote in an election, that candidate would be considered a major party candidate.

I think before we jump to conclusions on this bill we should actually take the time to read what it says and what it means, and not rely on the interpretation of people who have something to gain by its defeat.

I will be the first to admit that the bill does make it easier for the incumbents, it is refreshing to know that their is actually an attempt to reform campaigns that ultimately limit the amount that a candidate can spend. Something refreshing from Congress for a change.

For all those who jumped on the bandwagon and cried a foul, I am disappointed that you did not actually investigate this bill for yourself and instead relied upon the shabby and inaccurate work of others.

dmk