Would you be opposed to finance limits for political campaigns?

Question

For example, instead of the candidate going around trying to gather finanical donations, each candidate is given the same amount of money as well as the same airtime to give his/her opinion. Also, there will be televised debates. This way, the candidate with the most charisma, talent and best ideas will win, rather than the one with the most money to spend on attack commercials.

Answer 1

Right now, that is the rule - IF they take the funds from the party's money. A lot of candidates now opt for raising their own funds, for that way there is no limit on how much they can get or spend on their campaign.

I think there should be a cap - period. No matter if they are private donations or the party's funds. This way, it would make it a campaign on the issues, instead of the one that can hold out the longest in the financial department. Many candidates are forced to drop out before the primaries due to not enough money. To me that makes it more about the rich being able to have the position, and the "everyday man" not being able to afford to "buy" the office. That is not what this country is about, is it?

Answer 2

you have skirted around this situation with different questions earlier. i'm with you on the obtrusive choose for progression. however the suited court docket ruled funds is Speech. And Case regulation is going all of the until eventually now to the Patriarch Abraham. the nice and comfortable button is for non purple State electorate to attitude this greater like investment bankers than attempting to win the Champagne Finance Lotto. Bankers are consistently engaged on the thank you to get a penny from every physique. look into the Wall street crowd. A broker service that makes $100M merely have been given .33 of a cent from each American. The DNC desires this technique to compete with the massive lump sums of the RNC. bypass massive purple bypass

Answer 3

Nope, cause Hillary already has 20 million in the bank.