Check The "No" Box

At CNSNews.com, Peter Flaherty shows us why the presidential campaign fund is just one more government spending fiasco:

Tell the Taxman No to Subsidizing Politicians

You may think that checking "no" on your tax return for the presidential campaign fund means your tax money won't go to candidates with whom you disagree on the issues. Think again. The tax form clearly states that checking "yes" does not increase one's tax or reduce one's refund. So the money has to come from somewhere. That somewhere is the general fund of the U.S. Treasury, financed by all U.S. taxpayers. Those who check yes are simply telling the government to allocate more U.S. taxpayer money to the presidential campaign fund than would otherwise be the case. . . .

True to form, many members of Congress now want to raise the check-off amount to as much as $10. And into what kind of campaigns would this enlarged pot of money go?

This year, both George W. Bush and John Kerry have opted out of the taxpayer funding system, releasing them from the spending limits that comes with it. That leaves candidates like conspiracy theorist Lyndon LaRouche, who has received more than $5 million over the years. Among other things, LaRouche blames the September 11 attacks on "Jewish gangsters" and "Christian Zionists."

Lenora Fulani, an avowed Marxist whose New Alliance Party the FBI deemed "armed and dangerous," has collected $2.9 million. John Hagelin of the Natural Law Party has cashed in to the tune of $1.6 million. Hagelin advocated achieving peace in Kosovo entailed dispatching "Yogic flyers" to generate a "quantum-mechanical consciousness field."

Al Sharpton received $100,000 this year, which he seems to have quickly blown on fancy hotel stays and limo rides. Based on a complaint from my organization, the Federal Election Commission recently announced that Sharpton may have to give back the $100,000 amid allegations that he was ineligible to receive it.

Why should Americans be forced to subsidize the political speech of a bunch of nuts and hustlers?

To qualify for funding, all these fringe candidates have to do is raise over $5,000 in each of 20 states in contributions of $250 or less. The resulting federal matching funds enable them to disseminate their zany notions even farther and wider.

Taking minimum action on this issue is easy -- check the "No" box. But let's not stop there. Use our Take Action page to ensure that your representatives are not among the "many members of Congress" who want to raise the check-off amount to as much as $10. Tell them to nix the question instead.


Quality Punditry:

At OpinionJournal's Political Diary (subscription required), Holman Jenkins highlights the cruel consequences of being "nice" in Iraq:

It will be a long time before the average Iraqi does not believe he risks death or imprisonment for choosing the losing side in any political dispute. The only political judgment Iraqis have been conditioned for decades to make is "Who's stronger?" There's no "good will" that can be won that can solve our problem for us. What we offer--prosperity, democracy and rule of law--may be things most Iraqis desire, but Iraqis will fall into line with our plans not from idealism but from conviction that we are the stronger force. If he's serious about our mission, [President] Bush should seize the opportunity to show with finality that the U.S. military intends to remain the arbiter in Iraq. If not, he might as well figure out who the next Saddam is and hand the place over to him.

At the Washington Times, Pete Du Pont offers some historical perspective: A Bargain at the Pump -- Gasoline is $1 Cheaper Than in 1920.

(If you find this site useful and would like to help make political devotions a mass movement, please tell others about PoliticalDevotions.com or place a link to it on your website. Then when you've done so, be sure to e-mail me so I can thank you personally! - Tim.)