Congress eliminates public funding of party conventions

[Mr. Morden]

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/196920-convention-wipeout

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As that story notes, the federal government currently covers ~23% of the costs of the conventions.  Eliminating that leaves a funding hole that they'd have to make up from more private donations.

*However*, there's been talk in recent years of scaling back the conventions somewhat, possibly even going from four days to three days, since the networks cover them less than they used to anyway.  This might create the impetus for that.  Could then also play into the question of which cities are going to host the conventions in 2016.

[t_host1]

OK, amending to include their retirement package would be perfect. That is, the parties pay the retirement of their presented, endorsed and college educated immortals’, the carrot;, no fed tax, SS and Medicare.

[Mordecai]

Well that seems reasonable.

[Vosem]

Can't think of any reason to oppose this.

[Mr. Morden]

*bump*

http://thehill.com/homenews/200525-convention-cash-nixed-by-congress

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Awesome. Props to my state's delegation on this.

[bedstuy]

I'm looking forward to the Chick-fil-a Republican National Convention.

[NewYorkExpress]

Congress should consider eliminating the Conventions altogether. There's no reason why the Presidential and VP nominee's speeches can't occur on the road... in a swing state if necessary.

[Lupo]

Congress should consider eliminating the Conventions altogether. There's no reason why the Presidential and VP nominee's speeches can't occur on the road... in a swing state if necessary.

Conventions are necessary to conduct national committee business.  It also provides an opportunity for networking, meetings, and fundraising -- which are all important. 

With that said, I'm happy they'll no longer be taxpayer funded.

[Mr. Morden]

Congress should consider eliminating the Conventions altogether.

If the parties fund the conventions on their own, then what authority does Congress have to eliminate them?

[NewYorkExpress]

Congress should consider eliminating the Conventions altogether.

If the parties fund the conventions on their own, then what authority does Congress have to eliminate them?

Whether they should consider it and whether they actually can are two different things.

[Mr. Morden]

Congress should consider eliminating the Conventions altogether.

If the parties fund the conventions on their own, then what authority does Congress have to eliminate them?

Whether they should consider it and whether they actually can are two different things.

OK, let me rephrase: Why should Congress care if a political party wants to put on an expensive, but privately funded, political convention?

[NewYorkExpress]

Congress should consider eliminating the Conventions altogether.

If the parties fund the conventions on their own, then what authority does Congress have to eliminate them?

Whether they should consider it and whether they actually can are two different things.

OK, let me rephrase: Why should Congress care if a political party wants to put on an expensive, but privately funded, political convention?

Because most Congressmen and women are members of a political party...

[Mr. Morden]

Obama has signed the bill into law:

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/202627-obama-signs-bill-shifting-convention-funds-to-pediatric-research

No more public funding of the party conventions.

[Mr. Morden]

*bump*

Don't worry.  Now that the federal government is no longer chipping in any $, the FEC will allow donors to write bigger checks to make up the difference:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2014/10/09/354884204/fec-greenlights-more-convention-cash-for-political-parties

You must be logged in to read this quote.