Incumbent Party fixin's
As a Libertarian Party member, I think the election reform article on the Presidential Funding Act of 2006 (" Incentives can fix campaign financing " by Bill Bradley and Marty Meehan, Opinion and Commentary, Sept. 24) needs another headline.
Try "The fix is in again."
The Presidential Funding Act of 2006 is the latest protection "fix" for the bipartisan Incumbent Party (i.e., Democrats and Republicans). Prior fixes include:
- BiCRA (Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act) protects incumbents by limiting free speech before elections. It restricts challenger parties with regulations to which the Incumbent Party is more immune.
- Pennsylvania's 2006 ballot-access signature requirements paralyze statewide challenger parties. Compare 67,000 signatures required for third-party challengers to only 2,000 for Incumbent Party candidates.
- The Help America Vote Act mal-aligned the election process so even balloted candidates might not be properly counted. What chance do challenger type-ins (write-ins) have?
Given the direction of the country and that the Incumbent Party has controlled the White House and the Congress for generations, I can see why they need to "fix" it again.
Mark Crowley Plum
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Why not cash in?
- Apollo-Ridge raises hurt taxpayers
- Better border sense
- Spinning the Supremes
- Stop the whining
- Keeping the ‘faith’
- Answer to illegals
- Springdale high-rise stabbing
- The Declaration
- Leechburg’s ‘welcome’
- Worth the sacrifice