So this is the first year that I am doing my own taxes using software.
Before this I used a CPA and he would always ignore the little box for the presidential campaign fund. I would always remind him and he would act like checking the box was somehow bad for me (his insertion of politics into the tax preparation process is part of what made me try doing this on my own).
So I start up the software and there is the presidential campaign fund box. It says “would you like to donate $3 to the presidential campaign fund” Shouldn’t there be a clear notice that checking this box won’t cost me any money? Why the fuck isn’t that clearly marked?
I bet a lot more people would check the box if it was clear it wouldn’t cost them anything.
You’d have to ask the developers of your tax software why they don’t include that information if they don’t. On the actual tax form the box says “checking this box will not change your tax or refund.”
It is mostly irrelevant anyway. The huge amounts of private money involved in elections dwarfs any money ever collected via tax returns. (billions vs. tens of millions) If a candidate accepts public money for their campaign it comes with conditions, like limiting campaign spending to a set amount. But candidates are able to raise exponentially more money privately with no strings attached.
In 2008 both Obama and Clinton rejected public financing during the primaries. McCain did accept it in the general election but Obama again refused it. In 2012 both Obama and Romney declined to accept public funds in both the primary and general election. I don’t know what happened in 2016 but both candidates were millionaires (one claims to be a billionaire) and had huge private fundraising machines and super PAC’s at their disposal so I doubt that either accepted the public option.
With no major qualifying candidates to support the program has a surplus despite ever decreasing numbers of people checking the box on their tax returns. In 2015 congress cut off public funding for the nominating conventions which was 1/3 of what that money is earmarked for and that portion of the money is now used for pediatric medical research instead of presidential elections.
In short, it doesn’t cost you any money to check the box, but the money diverted to presidential politics is practically meaningless to the campaigns. People are generally not enthusiastic about doing things that are pointless even if it doesn’t cost them any additional money.
I don’t care if it doesn’t come out of my return. I don’t want to give $3 of my taxes to support the election process. It does nothing to stop or lower the astronomical amounts of money raised and blown on the whole process.
As I understand it, however, that was the purpose. If a candidate wants the “public money” they can’t go out and raise astronomical amounts of private money (in theory).
They can but for all the reasons already mentioned, they don’t. Since candidates have to choose between a limited amount of public money with lots of strings attached or unlimited private money with no strings attached the program has essentially become useless. It has a surplus of funds as it is, even with only 6% of tax payers opting in, and they are just picking random things to throw it at now since no candidates want it. Not that medical research is a bad thing… it may be a better use than presidential campaigns.
That’s fine and I would much rather see public financing of our political campaigns than private financing of our political campaigns. It seems like it would be money well spent.
There are ways to fix that. Lower the threshold. Finance the political campaign of the party that got the highest vote count without spending over the cap during the last election and maintain the threshold.
Is your gripe that no one donates the “free” money or that you want campaign finance reform?
People have laid out valid reasons why they don’t and why it’s a waste. Even if 50% of the people starting checking the box, it wouldn’t do what you want.