Time to End the Presidential Funding Tax Checkoff?

Wertheimer, Fred
April 2011
U.S. News Digital Weekly;4/8/2011, Vol. 3 Issue 14, p11
The author comments on the U.S. Presidential Funding Tax Checkoff. It is noted that there is a box in the federal tax forms that taxpayers can check to designate 3 U.S. dollars to a public fund for financing presidential campaigns. He explains that this was the result of the anti-corruption reforms in the wake of the Watergate scandals in 1974. He asserts that it has become outdated in recent years because the growing costs of presidential campaign has outstripped the public funds, but he argues that it needs to be repaired rather than to be repealed.


Related Articles

  • ELECTION LAW--INTRODUCTION. Levinson, Jessica A. // Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review;Spring2015, Vol. 48 Issue 3, p587 

    An introduction is presented in which the editor discusses several reports published within issue on topics including campaign finance law in the U.S.; the Federal Election Campaign Act; and definition of corruption.

  • Bernie Sanders to fight for campaign finance reform. Carney, Jordain // Hill;8/5/15, p15 

    The article reports on the move of U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders to introduce legislation to provide public funding for political campaigns.

  • Time to End the Presidential Funding Tax Checkoff? Cole, Tom // U.S. News Digital Weekly;4/8/2011, Vol. 3 Issue 14, p11 

    The author comments on the U.S. Presidential Funding Tax Checkoff. It is noted that through the system, taxpayers can designate to a public fund for financing presidential campaigns. He explains that this was authorized in 1971 to limit campaign spending, crack down on corruption, and make it...

  • The New Public Option. MILLER, JUSTIN // American Prospect;Fall2015, Vol. 26 Issue 4, p62 

    The article focuses campaign-finance reform programs in the U.S. aimed to increase the diversity of candidates and voter engagement. Topics covered include how the upsurge of money in politics in the past five years has blunted the effectiveness of public campaign-finance models, court decisions...

  • DEFINING CORRUPTION AND CONSTITUTIONALIZING DEMOCRACY. Hellman, Deborah // Michigan Law Review;Jun2013, Vol. 111 Issue 8, p1385 

    The central front in the battle over campaign finance laws is the definition of corruption. The Supreme Court has allowed restrictions on the giving and spending of money in connection with elections only when they serve to avoid corruption or the appearance of corruption. The constitutionality...

  • POLITICAL ACCOUNTABILITY, CAMPAIGN FINANCE, AND REGULATORY REFORM. WALDMAN, MICHAEL // North Carolina School Banking Institute Journal;2013 Special Edition, Vol. 18, p83 

    Michael Waldman argues that campaign finance laws are ripe for reconsideration. First, the Supreme Court of the United States' recent decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission has created numerous unexpected consequences, despite the case's young age. Second, the advent of...

  • THE CONSTITUTION AND INFORMATION POLITICS. McGinnis, John O. // Drake Law Review;Summer2013, Vol. 61 Issue 4, p1055 

    This symposium Article argues that an important objective of a constitution should be to generate a sound information politics where citizens and leaders alike update on information about past policy to create better future policy. The U.S. Constitution contains many features friendly to a sound...

  • CONTRACTING AROUND CITIZENS UNITED. Sitaraman, Ganesh // Columbia Law Review;Apr2014, Vol. 114 Issue 3, p755 

    The Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v. FEC is widely considered a major roadblock for campaign finance reform, and particularly for limiting third party spending in federal elections. In response to the decision, commentators, scholars, and activists have outlined a wide range of...

  • A Penny for Your Votes: Eliminating Corporate Contribution Bans and Promoting Disclosure After Citizens United. Raaii, Sarah G. // Iowa Law Review;Mar2015, Vol. 100 Issue 3, p1357 

    In 2010, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission established that the First Amendment protects corporate political speech. Citizens United subjected the federal ban on corporate independent expenditures to strict scrutiny, ultimately holding the ban unconstitutional. This Note argues that...


Read the Article


Sorry, but this item is not currently available from your library.

Try another library?
Sign out of this library

Other Topics