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.

[Mr. Morden]

*bump*

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

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[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?

[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?

[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.