should the government develop a limit to the amount of money allowed for campaign spending?

Answer 1

YES YES AND YES

Answer 2

It's actually putting the cart before the horse.

spending gets so high because it's a long, drawn out process - about a whole year, or even more.

If we had a parliamentary system, where elections are suddenly called at certain points, we could limit spending by limiting time - it could be three months from announcemnt of an upcoming election until election day. parties could spend two weeks seeing candidates announce, two weeks for the stumping, one month of primaries, and one month for the main race.

getting elections off of the tradtitional November scheule also makes it harder for terrorists to plot pre-election mischief. Right now, they know the dates of every eelction we're ever gonig to have.

As I see it, the speaker of the house could call for presidential elections somewhere between four and five years, while the president would call for congressional races every two to three years (1/3 of the senate would still ocme up at the same time). While candidates could theroetically jockey around in anticipation, it would be all hypothetical until the announcment is made, and no campaign money could be spent until an election is called.

Answer 3

Absolutely not.

Campaign spending is used to get out a message...a political message. The government should never play a role in limiting or regulating political messages. Government-mandated campaign spending limits are basically a watered-down version of censorship.

If I, as a free person, want to spend MY money to convince others to vote the way I like, no one should be allowed to stop me. I should be able to spend my own money how I want.

Answer 4

absolutely.

when there is no limit on spending, we end up with the best government money can buy. That is not good for the citizens.

We should also limit the amount of time spent on campaigning. In particular incumbents and Presidents who are spending all their time on the campaign trail instead of doing the job they were elected to do.

Answer 5

Another vote for "absolutely not," and a thumbs up for timm1776. I doubt I could have said it better than he did.

I often hear people say, "Money is not the same thing as speech." My reply to that is to say, ... of course not. But money isn't the same thing as religion, either. But, ...

Should the government develop a limit to the amount of money allowed for churches to collect from their congregations and then to spend on improving their church?

I think the answer is obvious.

Answer 6

Yes, but I don't know how that would be done. There are a lot of smart "poor" people who could do a better job then is being done now. In our local newspaper someone suggested an IQ test. Someone else wrote a letter to the editor that they needed a common sense test not an IQ test. Education doesn't give you common sense and a lot of "poor" people have the common sense but not the higher education, money and money backers.

Answer 7

yes this most definately should be inacted before the next election and also if the canidate runs a false add against his opent like bob korker did to harold ford they should be put in jail for the length of the term they were campaining for without trial. this slandering and lying has gone way too far and should be stoped. the united states is becoming the laughing stock of the whole world.

Answer 8

I see your factor yet,i be attentive to disabled persons that can no longer workout clarification for a bad decrease back meaning this person can no longer artwork meaning this person won't be able to get coverage meaning this person won't be able to get Medicaid/medicare by way of fact of land that replaced into inherited that isn't sell.So i do no longer think of there's a uniform structures that suits all yet some thing desires to be carried out

Answer 9

Absolutely. Not only limits on spending but limits contributions as well as TV ads.

Answer 10

Nope. It is THE freedom of speech that the 1st Amendment is specifically addressing.

Besides, it stimulates the economy by injecting money into it. And, assuming you don't have "clean election" laws, it is NOT our tax money that gets spent.

Answer 11

yes