I hear all about election reform, wouldn't you think this would make more sense? How about that. Let's make it like the NFL. They still can campaign, but have a cap to make it even.
2007-04-29 05:48:45 · 9 answers · asked by The Angry Elephant 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
the problem with a cap, well a cap is fine for cooperate contributions, but an individual in in effect exercizing their freedom of speech by giving to a caandiate, I'll agree though a maximum given to an account by an individual is a good thing.. but for example iff ppl like obama more than hillary why should they be disalowed form sending obama $100
so yes a maxhard cap for cooperations and a cap on how much one can give but not a cap on how many give.
2007-04-29 06:01:51 · answer #1 · answered by lethander_99 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
An arbitrary figure won't help, as it will need to be periodically adjusted for inflation. These adjustments will give future politicians plenty of room to weasel about. If we limit/cap the things candidates can PAY for (do we REALLY need to start campaigning two years out??), candidates would have to focus more on issues and less on each other.
I'd LOVE for all of the contributions to be pooled to publish a prospectus highlighting each candidates voting history, service history, criminal record, and stance on issues....and THAT be the full extent of the campaign season.
2007-04-29 13:01:21 · answer #2 · answered by evans_michael_ya 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Election reform is required.
Meaningful reform is going to take far more than a cap on money.
The media could go much farther than they have in providing free air time for viable candidates. This alone would reduce the need for massive ad campaigns that run the bill up.
But don't count on either party to go along with meaningful reform. It's all about the dead presidents as far as they're concerned.
2007-04-29 12:53:38 · answer #3 · answered by Floyd G 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
How about ALL campaign contributions being put into a pool, and then divided equally among ALL legitimately registered candidates?? Candidates would be required to submit a financial report as to how they spend the money, and that might show voters how fiscally responsible one candidate is over another. Any money leftover would not go to the candidate, but would be returned to fund future elections. Anyone caught accepting any other money is automatically disqualified from running in the current - or future - elections. -RKO- 04/29/07
2007-04-29 13:10:57 · answer #4 · answered by -RKO- 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I think the cap on individual contributions makes more sense. If a candidate has many supporters, they should be able to collect more money for their campaign, while disallowing wealthy individuals from 'buying' a campaign.
Why would you want to put the Communist candidate and the KKK candidate on a level footing with the candidates of the major parties?
2007-04-29 12:57:51 · answer #5 · answered by oohhbother 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Somethig like that wold be fine as far as I am concerned. We also need to disallow the "PAC" advertising.
To just cap what a candidate can spend on political campaings without limitig te advertiing sponsored by groups not directly connected to a campaign would be a bit useless.
2007-04-29 12:54:26 · answer #6 · answered by afreshpath_admin 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I'd be more in favor of a time limit. I'm an absolute political junkie, and I know I don't want to listen to the candidates yap for the next 18 months.
2007-04-29 12:56:28 · answer #7 · answered by Rick N 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Candidates go on talk shows for nothing and so they could get around any cap on advertising money.
2007-04-29 13:21:45 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Sounds good to me, even better would be federally funded elections.
2007-04-29 13:00:50 · answer #9 · answered by I'll Take That One! 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋