I was surfing a great website called Ballot-Access.org and read a couple comments about the Idaho Open Primary Court Case.
One comment, got me thinking. I listed it as my title to this post. (Thanks, Darryl.)
Here's a part of what I wrote in response:
If these are IN FACT party elections or caucuses, why is the taxpayer in my home state of Idaho (and yours?) paying for them? If Independents cannot vote in them (as is a partial focus of the Idaho case) why then should those citizens pay for the costs of those party elections?
Also, since a Party is a corporation and certain new rights have recently been accorded to corporations by the US Supreme Court, how can a Party expect to nominate from among its members, candidates, and expect the taxpayer to foot the bill?
Though I find it a repugnant idea, if we as tax payers are funding State Primaries, why are we not funding National Conventions with federal funds? Hmmm...seems some people want it both ways. Or not at all?
What does the taxpayer want?
Looks like we may have just opened ANOTHER can of worms?