The Independent Voter Project, authors of California’s new nonpartisan “Top-Two Open Primary” (Proposition 14), will be filing a new initiative with the California Secretary of State that will cut right to the core of partisan institutionalization.
The new initiative, which is undergoing preliminary drafting, would prohibit the use of public tax dollars for the purpose of funding partisan activities including, but not limited to, state political party central committees, partisan state conventions, reimbursement of travel or other expenses to party officials, and reimbursement for travel and other expenses for state officials or government employees for carrying out political party functions.
Additionally, IVP has begun the process of drafting a legal complaint — to be filed in federal court — challenging the constitutionality of using taxpayer funds to support such partisan activities. The basis of the lawsuit rests on the precedent established by political parties themselves, whereby parties have shielded themselves from higher standards of scrutiny based on their status as private organizations.
Finally, IVP will be announcing the formation of a non-partisan coalition to fuel an ongoing “End Partisanship” campaign. The coalition will support nonpartisan causes such as the initiative above, the lawsuit, and will seek to form bonds between nonpartisan organizations across the country to support the cause of its namesake.
IVP, along with its sister organization, the Foundation for Independent Voter Education (FIVE), publishes IVN.us, a nonpartisan platform for independent-minded journalists. IVP and its partners will be launching the “End Partisanship” campaign next month. In the meantime, you will be able to stay updated with nonpartisan news, including news relating to the above by visiting IVN.us.
You can sign up for daily updates HERE.
Please email [email protected] for more information.
Join the discussion Please be relevant and respectful.
It sounds good until you realize that the politicians will just go belly up to the Murdoch, Koch, Soros, Monsanto, BP, Big Oil, Big Pharma, etc trough for replacement funds. There's no way they'll dial down. I suggest instead that we not shut the front door while leaving the back door open. Limit private contributions, require them to be fully transparent, establish once and for all that corporate entities do not have the same inalienable rights as living humans, and THEN limit public funding if certain requirements aren't met. They would have to WANT this funding in order for it to make a difference, but if they have other avenues to get $millions it means nothing.
You are aware that other Party's Caucuses are funded as well, right? Just because people won't actually vote Independent is why those other Caucuses are not the same size or get as much funding. Maybe if you actually explained to people that most of the people they vote in like Palosi, Feinstein, Brown, and others even most Republicans have no clue what they are doing and just vote and work as their Caucus suggests they do people might be disgusted enough to actually start reading some bills and paying attention to how bad the are being lied to. But when you constantly rant about other crap you allow the same crap to go on day in and day out. Your treating Cancer with steroids. I'm not a rocket scientist but that isn't very hard to figure out.
I suggest to end the corporate welfare of political parties, ESPECIALLY the Republican and Democratic parties!
It will be very interesting to see what reactions these initiatives will receive. If you consider that 40% of Americans now consider themselves independent, and that an important number of republicans and democrats are likely to agree with this idea, we might easily have a majority of Americans in favor of not using taxpayer money for partisan purposes.
I vehemently oppose Top-Two. I steadfastly support ending the corporate welfare of political parties. As a leader in a state "third" party, I think it's completely bogus that my tax dollars are used to fund their operations.
I wouldn't characterize either party as 'weak' when talking about the power and money they possess. You're missing the point of this legislation. The whole thrust of this kind of legislation would mean that the parties are forced to fend for themselves to remain in power, rather than using public funds for partisan use. That way, I don't have to pay for two parties that I despise morally.
Maybe Id consider it after IVN shows me an example of a strong Republic with weak political parties.