What do you think about :"having a cap on how much can be spend by parties on elections campaigns?"?

Question

It's a truism, that elections are not won, but bought. It seems unfair, that good candidates are overlooked because they don't have as much money. Wouldn't it therefore be much more fair and democaratic, if a cap was implemented on how much a party or a candidate can spend on election campaign?.

Answer 1

The idea is a good one, and tries to tackle a real problem. Unfortunately, pragmatically speaking, a cap on election spending is pretty unworkable. There are so many ways around it that money will always manage to work its way through such rules.

Consider the fact that there are ALREADY limits on how much you can spend if you want matched federal funding. Candidates simply ditch federal funding because they can raise more on their own. There are limits on how much individual donors can give, but donations routinely pass these limits.

A more plausible solution is federally funded voter education campaigns. The government supplies campaign money to candidates, and all other campaign spending is done away with. This institutes a spending cap in a much more reliable way. There is no grey area for campaign finance to slip through the cracks, it's simply all gone except for federal money. Federal supervision might also clean up campaigns a little, focus on issues. A nice fringe benefit.

Answer 2

Actually, I'm in favor of the opposite. No caps. No contribution limits. No prohibition of public opposition campaigns. No limitations on political speech whatsoever.

But, it all must be transparent. This means that all donations must be made public, so that people know who's sponsoring what candidates and which propositions.

This is the ONLY fair way, and is most consistent with the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Answer 3

in oz in state government there is a cap so its all about how well the money is spent and the amount of bullshit promises they can drill in your head B4 an election. And yes it helps unlike the federal gov that basically buy your vote and at the end of the day its your wages )tax) that they throw around like a joke.so Yes it helps close the gap

Answer 4

Yes. There need to be more than just republican and democrat they are both corrupt evil parties hell bent on remaining in power and doing whatever they have to. There should be more diversity more options and more people in government who actually represent real americans. There should be a cap on what is spent, it gets tiring hearing about how many millions upon millions are spent on campaigns.

Answer 5

we want to remove the present abode of representatives and the Senate and choose individuals for u . s . a . of america no longer democrats or republicans. time period Limits of two 4 12 months words a lifeless ringer for the President. remove agencies and lobbyists from donating. decrease election spending, so well-known electorate can run for place of work. "We the human beings, for the human beings, through the human beings". Make the place of work's area-time so human beings did no longer ought to resign their jobs(even with each thing, the present individuals do not paintings finished time, except in operating to get re-elected)

Answer 6

no cap......there are always ways around them.

just take money out of the process completely. elections are a joke, "winning" an election is nothing more than a financial transaction that is the result of massive spending.

Answer 7

I think it would be a great idea. But since America is only concerned with making money and not being fair, I doubt it will ever happen. But you are absolutely correct. Elections aren't won anymore, they are bought.

Answer 8

These are the fantasies of children.

What earthly difference does it make how much is spent on political campaigns unless you're watching too much un-Tivo'd TV?

Answer 9

This runs against my political ideology, so I think it's a bad idea.

Do you think lowering the amount spent will change anything?

It won't change anything any more than raising the minimum wage would.

Answer 10

once someone makes it threw the primary make it a publicly funded election! no more lobbyists buying candidates and policy!.. only problem is it would have to pass.. and there's no way the lobbyists will let that one slide threw :(