Welfare Recipients Help Obama Break Fundraising Records

American taxpayers should be furious about our Presidents favorite source of campaign cash; government handouts. For over a year, the Obama campaign has been receiving financial support one dollar at a time from a slice of America whose income is dependent on government largess.  Obama’s campaign slogan should be “get a free phone send us a buck” or “send us a grant and we’ll give you’re a grant.”

Some people argue that welfare and food stamp recipients shouldn’t be allowed to vote. The logic of their argument rings through as it suggests those receiving government assistance are more likely to vote for candidates who provide them with an income over those that support hard working taxpayers. This sounds reasonable to me but depriving an American citizen of a fundamental right to vote is not consistent with my conservative ideology. However allowing “those who can’t take care of themselves” to contribute “free government money” to the candidate of their choice is a slap in the face that requires change.

For months the Obama/Biden campaign has been actively soliciting $3 donations and apparently it’s working out well since they managed to raise $181 million last month; the bulk of which came from small donations below $200. Well over half of Obama’s September haul just happened to be from small contributions (by law contributions under $200 do not require donor disclosure) with an average amount reported at $53.

Since the volume of the President’s supporters have been characterized by his campaign as struggling American families, I wonder how many Obama donations came by way of EBT (electronic benefits transfer) card transfers? It is my belief that last month the Obama campaign broke all fund raising records through its brilliant strategy to use taxpayer dollars laundered through our government safety net and this atrocity needs to be exposed.

It’s a fact that welfare, food stamp, Pell Grant and extended unemployment benefits recipients are donating to political campaigns in large number and I contend that “not for profit” net unproductive taxpayers  should be disqualified under the law from contributing their government benefits  to any candidate, PERIOD! Contributing to political campaigns unlike voting is not a civil right it is a privilege earned through sacrifice and campaigns are using confiscated income to fund their campaigns every day. This is just another example of the absurd lucidity of campaign finance laws.

Contrary to those who may speak in opposition to my idea, the government has always put limits on what handouts may be used for so why shouldn’t campaign contributions be restricted behavior for beneficiaries of the taxpayer? After all food stamps can’t be spent on dog food, booze or Cadillacs so why is it such a stretch to restrict entitlement money from funneling to campaign coffers? If the financially disadvantaged want to support a particular candidate let them get off their fat asses and donate their abundance of free time instead of my money to support their candidate.

Last time I looked incumbent candidates are restricted from using government resources for campaigning. As a matter of fact it is a crime that has resulted in several political operatives going to prison. Yet our current campaign finance laws accept the fleecing of tax payers to fund campaigning with GOVERNMENT RESOURCES. Perhaps liberals who scream about “Citizens United” should consider the preposterousness of free speech for welfare queens paid for by tax payers.

As it is with our debts and deficits our political culture’s depravity grows with each campaign season. I don’t know how the rest of America feels but I think if you can’t take care of yourself you shouldn’t be able to take care of your candidate with my “government money”. Perhaps we live in a world where there is such a thing as a “free lunch” after all.