It's not a poll tax b/c we're talking about primary elections, not general elections. A primary election is a private affair (albeit state funded in most cases)(which may well be one justification for open primary laws which requires participating parties to let anyone who wants to vote in their primary to do so) held by the political parties.

As I mentioned, political parties are private organizations. I have no more right to be admitted to the Democratic Party as I do to be admitted to the Sewickley Country Club. The two organizations simply have simply differing criteria for membership concomitant with their differing missions.

Besides, as a private organization, the Democratic Party could structure their dues such that people who can't pay the dues get waived in or otherwise subsidized by wealthier members.

As for Republicans willingly paying dues to the Democrats, I'm not so sure they'd do this. They get mad enough about some minuscule fraction their tax dollars going toward NEA grants,a tiny fraction of which then go on to controversial artists. I think they'd balk at giving what could add up to millions of dollars directly to their political adversaries.

Anyway, it's just an idea that popped into my head (one I like, of course) - one suggestion among many for limiting the influence of monkey-wrenchers in the selection of candidates. I'm curious as to what you think some solutions might be.

Actually, given that the Republican base has complained about the influence of independents and Democratic monkey-wrenchers in their past primaries, this issue in general might be one where we're able to find common ground that would benefit both parties and go some small way toward restoring good faith amongst the parties.

Any constructive thoughts, E-man?

Daskal missed an opportunity to really buttress her argument by showing that even a man completely convinced of a defendant's guilt see fair trials as the key to a legitimate and unambiguous prosecution, one that actually separates the sheep from the goats instead of sending them all to a common slaughterhouse.

But it raises another question for me.

Since she's not really proposing a gas tax holiday, but rather is proposing that the oil companies continue to pay the tax (in one form or another) but not pass it on to the consumer...

Is there any precedent for the government dictating what cost a company can or can't pass on to consumers?

How would such a directive be policed and enforced?

How would one separate market-based (such as they are) price increases from passing on the cost of the tax?

And I still don't understand how lowering the cost of gasoline in the short term won't increase cost in the long term, via increased demand.

Or why the companies, once the gas holiday ends, wouldn't just increase prices to compensate for revenue lost during the holiday...

Explanations? Elucidations? (But no rationalizations...)

"Hillary will ensure that this relief is passed along to consumers by charging the Federal Trade Commission with conducting aggressive oversight."

I don't have much confidence that our current FTC would aggressively oversee anything related to the oil industry, and the current FTC is key since it's the one we're gonna have all summer long.

"Recent testimony before the House of Representatives by the American Trucking Association indicates that even small changes in price can have big impacts. Just a one-penny decrease in the price of diesel annualized over an entire year would save the trucking industry $391 million a year."

What guarantees do we have that this savings will be passed on to consumers? Plus, doesn't this savings work out to a buck and change per person? ($391 million / $301 million = $1.30)

"Her entire plan, which Obama's ad does not mention is outlined as follows: [...]

Ideas #2 (closing loopholes, subsidizing energy costs for the poor) & #3 (cracking down on speculation) are good, but they needn't be tied to a summer gas tax holiday. Such proposals might fare better if separated from the issue as those Democrats who oppose a ags tax holiday might well support these particular measures. [Has she introduced these proposals to the Senate?]

Idea #1 - "Imposing a windfall profits tax on oil companies and using the money to suspend the gas tax for the peak summer months" - still doesn't address the issue of long-term price hikes due to the demand created by short-term price cuts. And, of course, there's still the FTC (non)enforcement issue with the current administration...

"Pressuring OPEC to increase oil production, including by filing a WTO complaint against OPEC countries..."

Aren't they already producing at capacity? And if not, hasn't Bush tried this and failed? He's still gonna be our President this summer...

Idea #4, re: capping and tapping the SPR might be the a good way to immediately affect the price of oil this summer, but it's up to Bush to do so.

Final point re: her plan ... this is her plan for when she's president, no? So these proposals won't be enacted unless she's elected and unless congress passes them. All of which will happen after this summer, which is what I thought we were discussing.

Re: Thorin01 and military contracts... I think it's not even a partial precedent as you're talking about the rules the government uses when negotiating contracts with private parties. What I was talking about was more along the lines of price-capping, i.e. industry-wide mandates on what costs can or can't be passed on to consumers.

I'm no expert here (obviously), but I'm still just trying see the wisdom suspending the tax for this summer. I don't think that McCain's proposal is at all wise, and I don't think that Clinton's ideas could pass Congress, let alone the President's desk.

You're confusing George McGovern with George Mitchell re: your baseball and steroid comments.

Just tell me which candidate is associated with Rev. IVAN Stang, and that's the one I'll vote for...

What's happening to the delegates Edwards has won?