Washington elected officials are neglecting their jobs by fundraising for their own election campaigns at the same time

From The Party Blog  |  Lawmakers continue to fundraise around health care and financial reform  |  by Patrick Simmons  |  May 23, 2011

The 111th Congress may be over but that doesn’t mean the major issues that defined the historic session are settled. Health care reform and financial services regulation, topics that dominated the debate in the 111th Congress, are still being debated in Congress and used as fundraising draws. From January to June of this year, Party Time has received 16 events centered on the financial services industry and 18 concerning health care. Many of these events are being hosted by health care or financial services industry PACs.

Many of our representatives in Washington, DC, are abusing the legislative process by fundraising for their own election campaigns during their terms; they are also creating a conflict-of-interest by fundraising from special interests that will be affected by that same legislation.  The are listening to some bills' interested parties during their own fundraisers!

Their job of representing us should, of course, always comes first; however, the time and energy needed for the work of legislating and helping their constituents is much too often neglected in favor of their own personal lives.  The campaign finance system of Public Financing is a good solution to this critical problem; presently, presidential nominees may qualify for Presidential public financing.


campaign financing, Presidential   The Presidential Election Campaign Fund is an account administered by the U.S. Treasury that provides funds to Presidential candidates in the nominating contest and the general election. The fund is authorized by the Revenue Act of 1971, which allows each taxpayer to allocate a dollar of his income taxes to the Treasury's Presidential election account. The allocation does not increase the amount of tax a person pays. The law went into effect with the 1976 election.

To be eligible for federal funds, candidates must agree to abide by the reporting requirements and spending limitations of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 and the amendments of 1974. Candidates qualify for federal funds during the nominating contest if they raise $5,000 in each of 20 states through individual contributions of $250 or less. Once qualified, they receive matching funds from the Treasury for all contributions of $250 or less, up to the limits established by law.

In the general election, candidates who agree not to accept any private contributions are eligible for Treasury funding of their campaigns, up to the legal limits. In addition, the two major parties receive $11 million each for their national conventions. They may accept private donations for “party building” activities such as voter registration drives, which in reality go toward Presidential campaign activities.

Candidates who choose not to accept public funding for their primary or general election campaigns have no spending limits. Since the law was enacted, the only two serious contenders for the Presidency who did not accept federal funds were John Connally, who spent millions in 1980 and won just a single delegate to the Republican national convention, and independent Ross Perot, who spent $60 million of his own funds and received almost 20 percent of the popular vote in 1992.


"campaign financing, Presidential"  The Oxford Guide to the United States Government. John J. Patrick, Richard M. Pious, and Donald A. Ritchie. Oxford University Press, 2001. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press.  David Weller.  23 May 2011  <http://www.oxfordreference.com/views/ENTRY.html?subview=Main&entry=t89.e110>

• For information from a federal public finance advocate, see Public Campaign.