The government pays for political campaigns, and I don't think the legality of that is in dispute. This doesn't seem much different from that.

http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/pubfund.shtml

Note: I think it's terrible policy, I'm just pointing out the precedent.

Our gov is based on electing people, not parties. I can see how subsidizing individual campaigns can be allowed. Subsidizing parties is contrived from little to no constitutional basis.

The gov subsidizes parties. Campaign subsidies are given only to nominees of major and minor political parties, and party conventions are subsidized directly. From my previous link:

"The Presidential nominee of each major party may become eligible for a public grant..."

"The amount of public funding to which a minor party candidate is entitled is based on the ratio of the party's popular vote in the preceding Presidential election..."

"Each major political party is entitled to $4 million (plus cost-of-living adjustments)8 to finance its national Presidential nominating convention. A qualified minor party may become eligible for partial convention funding..."

As for the constitutional basis, I agree that there is none. Then again, there is little to no constitutional basis for social security, medicare, the war on drug users, the department of education, etc.

I'm just saying that gop.gov isn't anything special or unprecedented.

you are correct, of course. I was writing with my idealist hat on ;).

partisan-ship and two party systems are so base, it rattles my mind how short sighted they can be.