According to a report from CQ Politics, when it comes to paying for the Democratic and Republican national conventions, the lobbyists and corporate contributors seem to be getting all the headlines. But the American taxpayer is also footing a good chunk of the bill.

As the nonprofit group Taxpayers for Common Sense reminds us, the public presidential campaign finance system will be underwriting a portion of the festivities in Colorado for the Democrats and in Minnesota for the Republicans.

“About $16 million in operating expenses will be picked up by taxpayers, and each convention has been given $50 million worth of security funding as ‘emergency spending.,” according to recent a TCS statement.

The system for public funding of the conventions has been in place since the mid-1970s, enacted as part of the Federal Election Reform Act to help rein in campaign finance excesses. The money comes from the voluntary donations taxpayers can make via a check-off box on their income tax returns.

The public side of convention funding has grown by leaps and bounds since 1976 when each major national party received $2.2 million in tax dollars to help put on their nominating shows. This year, each will get $16.4 million. The parties, however, have each budgeted more than $40 million for the events.

The gap will be covered by unlimited contributions raised from wealthy individuals and corporations. That money can be written off as tax deductible, which ups the cost even more for the taxpayers.

As a reward for their generosity, taxpayers might expect to be treated like well-heeled donors. But all they can really count on for their donations is two weeks of political speechifying in place of their favorite TV shows.

According to Gerald Prante, Senior Economist with the Tax Foundation
The latest release of Internal Revenue Service data on individual income taxes comes from calendar year 2006, a year in which the economy remained healthy and continued to grow, increasing individual income tax collections along with overall average effective tax rates.
This year’s numbers show that both the income share earned by the top 1 percent of tax returns and the tax share paid by that top 1 percent have once again reached all-time highs. In 2006, the top 1 percent of tax returns paid 39.9 percent of all federal individual income taxes and earned 22.1 percent of adjusted gross income, both of which are significantly higher than 2004 when the top 1 percent earned 19 percent of adjusted gross income (AGI) and paid 36.9 percent of federal individual income taxes.
The IRS data also shows increases in individual incomes across all income groups (see Table 3). Just as the highest earners lost the biggest percentage of their incomes during the recession of 2001, so they have prospered the most as the economy continued to rebound through 2006. For example, from 2000 to 2002, the AGI of the top 1 percent of tax returns fell by over 26 percent. In that same period, the AGI of the bottom 50 percent of tax returns actually increased by 4.3 percent. However, since 2002, as the recession has ended, AGI has risen by over 81 percent for the top 1 percent (an average of over 20 percent per year) and 17 percent (an average of around 4 percent per year) for the bottom 50 percent.
In sum, between 2000 and 2006, pre-tax income for the top 1 percent of tax returns grew by 34 percent, while pre-tax income for the bottom 50 percent increased by 22 percent. All figures are nominal (not adjusted for inflation).
This pattern of income loss and growth at the top of the income spectrum is the same during every recession and recovery. The net result has also been a sharp rise in federal government tax revenue from 2003 to 2006 compared to previous years.

Per the IRS, a scheme in which a tax refund form is e-mailed, supposedly by the Taxpayer Advocate Service (a genuine and independent organization within the IRS which assists taxpayers with unresolved problems), is particularly blatant in the amount and type of information it requests.

The top of the form tells the recipient that they are eligible for a tax refund for a specified amount.  The form asks for name, address and phone number and a substantial amount of financial information, such as bank account number, credit card number and expiration date, ATM PIN number and more. It also asks for mother’s maiden name (frequently used by many people as an account security password).

At the bottom is a phony name and signature, claiming to be that of the Taxpayer Advocate. The implication is that the taxpayer must fill in and submit the form to receive a tax refund. In reality, taxpayers claim their tax refunds through the filing of an annual tax return, not a separate application form.