Friday, April 27, 2007 Got a question? Get an answer. Send an e-mail to Dear Mr. Mullings Dear Mr. Mullings: These used to be published on Wednesdays. Now they are on Fridays. What gives? Rich Alexandria, VA A couple of things. First, the work flow of my week tends to be busier during the early part than during the latter. I think - we'll see - that I'll have more time to research and/or invent answers to your questions by writing on Thursdays rather than Tuesdays. Second, Fridays' Mullings tend to be slighly lighter in tone than the other two, so Dear Mr. Mullings appears to fit better. Dear Mr. Mullings: What's the deal with that $3 checkoff to fund President Campaigns? Teri This is another excellent example of a reform which has, over time, had exactly the opposite effect from that which its backers has promised. According to the Federal Election Commission's website dealing with Public Financing of Presidential Campaigns, in order to qualify for matching funds (which is what the $3 is partially used for): A candidate for President must "raise in excess of $5,000 in each of at least 20 states (i.e., over $100,000). Although an individual may contribute up to $2,300 to a primary candidate, only a maximum of $250 per individual applies toward the $5,000 threshold in each state. In addition, there is an overall limit of $10 million (plus a cost of living increase each cycle), agree to limits on spending in each state; and must agree to limit spending from personal funds to $50,000. None of the big six candidates has agreed to any of that. For the General Election, each candidate who wants the checkoff money gets $20 million (which is a drop in the bucket in this cycle) but must also agree not to raise additional money. It does not appear that any of the major candidates will agree to that, either. So, the net result of the public financing of Presidential campaigns is: It allows minor candidates who have no chance of every getting to the White House, to run around the country pretending to be serious. Dear Mr. Mullings: We always hear the phrase "separation of church and state" being used, usually to refer to prohibiting various holiday displays. I don't see that phrase in the Constitution. Eric Cleveland, OH As you point out in your e-mail, the complete text of the First Amendment is: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." As you know, the first section - "... no law respecting an establishment of religion" was to avoid the theory of government which was common at the time in Europe (and remains to this day) in which many countries had an official religion. Britain is Anglican, France and Italy are Catholic, Saudi Arabia is Muslim, Israel is Jewish, and so on. It is easy to poke fun at people who make a big deal about a nativity scene on the City Hall lawn at Christmas time; but if you lived in a suburb of Detroit, where a large percentage of the population is Muslim, you might cringe at public funds being used to have an equivelent scene marking Ramadan. I agree with the tone of your email, that the Constitution doesn't specifically mention any separation of Church (or Synogague or Mosque) and State, but the clear implication is that the Founders were not in favor of having an official state-sponsored religion. There are still places where it is illegal to sell beer, wine or spirits on Sunday - a clear nod to the Christian sabbath. I am old enough to remember wide-spread "blue-laws" which made it illegal for many retail stores to be open on Sunday which, today, would not be tolerated. Nevertheless, you cannot buy a sandwich at a Chick-Fil-A on a Sunday. The chain chooses to remain closed. Last one Dear Mr. Mullings: Are Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi guilty of treason? Scott I doubt it. Treason is defined by the Princeton Universty website as "disloyalty by virtue of subversive behavior" or "treachery: an act of deliberate betrayal." The Merriam-Webster Unabridged defines treason as "The offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally injure the sovereign or his family." While Reid's statement that we have lost the war in Iraq and Pelosi's trip to Syria show unbelievably bad judgement, it doesn't seem that they fit into the realm of, as another definition puts it "A violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies. See you next week. Rich Got a question? Get an answer. Send an e-mail to Dear Mr. Mullings                                     Click here to return to the Secret Decoder Ring page Copyright © 2007 Barrington Worldwide, LLC