2006-12-31 07:53:12 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
You cant because the constitution protects your freedom of speech. Currently the courts interpret spending on advertising as "speech".
2006-12-31 07:57:01 · answer #1 · answered by snarkysmug 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
It might be a great idea. Americans have become accustomed to "sound bytes" of information and are not fully aware of who might make the better candidate. It would reduce the amount of money that needs to be raised to run a campaign and reduce special interest groups from lining the pockets of candidates to sway votes. It might be an abridgment of Freedom of Speech, but the voice of the People that are governed need to be heard as well.
2006-12-31 17:14:53 · answer #2 · answered by Sassy 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Guess we couldn't make it illegal what with our freedoms and all, but here's an idea.
I think we as citizens of this country should demand that candidates use the money they get fundraising to do something good, charitable or whatever and have us make our choices based on what they chose to do. That way, we'd actually get something more than just a handful or rich windbags fighting about things they claim to care about out of this mess we call American politics!
2006-12-31 16:25:22 · answer #3 · answered by tcdrtw 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sounds good in theory, but if you watch important debates you will begin to see that they are so well-rehearsed. Did you notice in the last presidential debate that Bush's podium was closer to the camera than Kerry's? And they were place at angles so that it was hard to discern. Plus the obvious fact that Bush was wired and he didn't speak until someone told him what to say. Also Kerry repeated the same rhetoric for most of his answers, in effect saying nothing new.
So, in concept your idea is excellent, but there is still a long way to go before we can hear HONEST debate
2006-12-31 16:03:26 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Political advertising is actually the MAIN thing protected by the 1st amendments 'freedom of speech' and 'freedom of the press' clauses.
2006-12-31 17:21:15 · answer #5 · answered by STEVEN F 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because political advertising is speech and free speech is guaranteed by the Constitution.
Fact is, spending limits are unconstitutional too.
2006-12-31 17:42:57 · answer #6 · answered by kingstubborn 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because we have a constitution that protects free speech. Political speech is a form of speech so it is protected. I agree with the point you're trying to make, but it simply won't happen due to constitutional reasons.
2006-12-31 15:59:26 · answer #7 · answered by FrederickS 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It would violate freedom of speech but I'm just as sick of the mud slinging and idiocy as you are. I've gotten to where I really don't WANT to vote because of all the crap shoved at us on television. Yes I still vote but I don't vote for the major parties that are in on all the garbage hauling.
2006-12-31 16:01:22 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I agree with the idea of more televised debates. You're probably not going to stop the money machine.
2006-12-31 16:00:58 · answer #9 · answered by ROBERT L O 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
That would be a great idea if everyone were to get an equal chance. they could exercise their freedom of speech in that manner.
2006-12-31 15:57:59 · answer #10 · answered by mstrywmn 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋