Important. Susan Fisher, Bruce Goforth, Jane Whilden, R. Philip Haire, Ray Rapp, and Cullie Tarleton all think that candidates should be penalized for raising funds beyond specified thresholds. Moreover, they believe the penalty should be that taxpayers contribute matching funds to the campaign of the opposition, or, as Daren Bakst says, the “welfare candidate.†Fisher, Goforth, and Rapp went so far as to cosponsor House Bill 120, which would legislate the subsidy of candidates deemed inferior by folks sufficiently engaged in the political process to make campaign contributions. The bill is scheduled for a third reading Tuesday, April 21 (today), and insiders expect the voting to be very close.
Similar legislation has been challenged as unconstitutional, as it hacks away on the popular candidate’s ability to voice his opinions without subsidizing the opposing views. It further forces taxpayers to contribute to the campaigns of unpopular candidates, whose principles, or lack thereof, they may vehemently oppose on moral or religious grounds. Unless the state will be funding welfare candidates with its $3.4 billion deficit, it may have to raise taxes in these tough economic times to get money channeled into the coffers of the unpopular candidate.
To their credit, Phillip Frye, Mitch Gillespie, W. David Guice, and Carolyn Justus voted against the nonsense. Over 90% of taxpayers vote against it by not checking the boxes on their tax forms.
