If there were limits on spending cost for elections , wouldn't it allow many more qualified candidates?

Question

to run for office .
With the cost of elections going out of sight and all the fund raising that has to be done . Doesn't it make sense to do away with lobbyist and donations from Corporations , that want to influence the Candidates

Mark D , Isn't this America and we all ready have bozos running and winning . So what's your point ?

Answer 1

This issue has been highly debated along with term limits for both House and Senate Represenitives back during the Clinton administration with the election of the Republican Congress via the "Contract with America." It didnt go through then and I doubt it will go now- even with all the scrutany of celebreties getting unclaimed perks from businesses...

It's hard to get change from a group of politicians who have been in office about as long or longer than Ive been alive, but who am I to say...oh, yeah- I vote.

Answer 2

They already do by limiting how much a company or person can donate however that's already been worked around as people and company's just donate to a private company who then runs slander and bullshit campaigns against there adversary.

Here in Florida the outback steak house and other restaurants and stores put over a million in a front company, to put on TV bullshit about how all the restaurants bars and retail stores would have to raise there prices several dollars on every item to cover it, which in reality never happened

A few places involved tryed to raise their prices however their competition did not, so they did not do well in fact a few went out of business

Answer 3

McCain tried election and campaign finance reform, but failed. There's just too much money to be made. It's like stopping the drug trade.Republicans and some libertarians will say limiting spending is a restraint on free speech! As if those TV ads were free speech. What they have to worry about are restrictions on everyone's ability to criticize the government, not whether pols can flood the airwaves with meaningless, negative campaign ads.

Answer 4

you could no longer buy an election if we put spending limits on elections .If you notice it cost millions to get elected to a 200,000 a year job so why would anyone with a brain spend that much money unless being a politician is like being a corporation .You profit from the laws you pass that protect your friends and those who will pay you for those laws .
It is a business purchase with benefits that allow you to collect millions in 5 years or so .
Senators and career politicians have friends and family that benefit in the millions from budget spending and many rules of law that are passed enabling them to earn huge sums of money

Answer 5

You are right. It would allow for more candidates to run for office. It's tiring to see the same people running for office with lobbyist backing them. It's like a television show with the candidates and company funding:

The president george w. bush is brought to you by Office Max. "Taking care of business.....for us..."

Answer 6

And it would allow for many, many more UNqualified candidates, too. Do you really want all of the kooks and bozos to get a "fair chance" to compete for office?

Answer 7

Campaign funds are supposed to be regulated but the candidates have find ways to maneuver the rules.

Answer 8

Yes I agree about lobbyists and corporations, but maybe it would give us some qualified candiates to begin with.

Answer 9

Thats like asking criminals to design the jailhouse. It would take a constitutional amendment and the republicans/corporations would fight it tooth and nails. Still a good idea though.

Answer 10

It would make sense but unfortunately it is unconstitutional, comes under free speech. Besides don't you think that those with money would find a way around such a law. I am afraid we are stuck with the same ol' kinds of choices.