Just think what the rest of the millions could do. For example, Hillary Clinton has raised $90million. That could do so much good in other areas, like child poverty etc.
2007-12-19 07:53:07 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
We should limit it to something! I think each candidate who qualifies, somehow, to run for office should have no more than 6 weeks to campaign and get a set limited amount of funds from the government to campaign and would be forbidden from raising any additional money on their own. That would equal the playing field. How they would qualify, I don't know.
2007-12-19 07:58:00 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
It would be unconstitutional because it would limit political speech. It would also give well known people even more of an advantage than they already have. Money spent on selecting a president is not excessive when compared to the country's income of over 10 trillion dollars. More money is spent advertising breakfast cereal.
2007-12-19 09:14:20 · answer #2 · answered by meg 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why do no longer you write a letter asking him. i will start up it for you: expensive Mr President, besides the fact that our united states of america is falling into deep recession with many human beings dropping their jobs, we are embroiled in a conflict it quite is costing us trillions, Bin Ladin continues to be at great, what's quite quite traumatic me so as that I even have worry falling asleep at night is thinking the place you acquire each and every of the money on your campaign ...
2016-11-04 01:39:36 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. The US Supreme Court has already determined that campaign spending is free speech, protected by the First Amendment.
2007-12-19 08:00:20 · answer #4 · answered by regerugged 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. That's the freedom of democracy. As long as the candidates don't do the special favors for the most campaign donor (I know, quite naive).
2007-12-19 08:01:37 · answer #5 · answered by Austrian Theorist 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think we should limit the dates that someone can join the election. And the ten mill? It costs too much today to run all those attack ads.
2007-12-19 08:50:30 · answer #6 · answered by Big Bear 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Wouldn't hurt. Might take the for sale sign off the white house.
2007-12-19 07:56:49 · answer #7 · answered by Holy Cow! 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Yes............... It is obscene the amount of money spent to elect a Presidential Candidate. All that money equates a whole bunch of people that want favors.
2007-12-19 07:57:42 · answer #8 · answered by truth seeker 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
True, but then it wouldn't be a case of let the most influential win or the richest win or whatever.
2007-12-19 08:30:32 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
They'd just figure some loophole around it. Look at campaign finance reform....a joke!
2007-12-19 07:59:35 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋