Should campaign spending be illegal?

Question

I believe that it should be, there should be specific debates, and a certain amount of ad time given to each candidate. They should not be allowed to buy more time, or be given more time on television. If they want to run around the country stumping they should still be allowed to do that. Also, the news should not be allowed to talk about on candidate more than another, if one is talked about for 5 minutes, they all need to be discussed for an equal amount of time.

Ok, I'll buy that... but if you consider it a violation of freedom of speech then what do you think about the fact that it is illegal for a station to give one candidate time on their station but not offer it to all others? Seems to me we already have violations of freedom of speech that help the big guy (A station cannot let a little guy get free time, without allowing a big guy to get free time) so I don't buy that idea.

Answer 1

I think campaign spending is so exorbitant and wasteful it ought to be criminalized. When I hear of some nut like Perot squandering the GNP of Great Britain in a failed attempt to get elected, it makes my stomach churn.

"Stop those fools before they spend again!!"

Answer 2

Like B. Kevorkian said, it'd be a violation of the freedom of speech to impose your kind of restriction. Freedom of speech also means a right to campaign. And saying that you will allow people to campaign but not allow them to spend money on the effort makes no sense. Like George F. Will said, to say that you are for freedom of speech and for a cap on campaign expenditures is like saying that you are for an unabridged right to read and for strict rationing of paper.

Answer 3

Conceptually, yeah, I agree - it should be all about the issues.

Practically, though, it would be virtually impossible to implement without abridging the right of free speach.

Answer 4

guess what...we'd never have a new president that way.