The U.S. Congress in 1973 and again in 2002 has passed legislation that attempted to control the amount of money spent in political campaigns. The legislation attempted to regulate how much an individual could contribute (currently $2000), how much Political Action Committees (PACS) could provide a candidate ($5000), as well as, regulating what outside groups could do in support of a particular candidate. The 1973 law also limited how much candidate's could spend on their campaigns. That provision was deemed unconstitutional as a violation of the First Amendment guarantee of free speech.
In his bid to win election to the presidency Barack Obama spent over $760 million, a record for a presidential candidate. In fact, Obama spent more than George Bush and John Kerry spent combined in 2004. Of course, campaign spending has soared well past the cost of living in all election contests. Many reformers are concerned as campaign spending increases and candidates are pressed to raise funds at an increasingly alarming rate that the candidates become more indebted to those who provide the money.
Others, however, argue that how one spends one's money is nothing more than expression of their support for a particular candidate and thus should be considered speech that is protected by the First Amendment. Further, they argue that the only way that challengers have of defeating entrenched incumbents is to raise large sums of money to overcome the advantages that an incumbent naturally has from his position in office.
Is there a way to stop the influence of money in politics? Should we try to regulate how much is spent on political campaigns?
Some have proposed that the Congress establish a partial public funding mechanism for House of Representatives and Senate races. When candidates reach a threshold amount of fundraising, which would vary from state to state based on population, they would receive government funding for their campaigns. They would have to meet the threshold with contributions of $100 or less. They could continue to receive funding through this arrangement by gaining $4 for every $1 they raise through these small contributions.
What do you think of such a proposal?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Of course everybody wants to Win, and wants votes but I do think that there should be some sort of limit exspecial if it is gov't money that we are spending for these campaigns. And with the economy the way it is, why on earth would the gov't allow this much money be spent on such things. $2,000 does not seem like a lot of money to be spent on a presidential campaing though. I can see both sides.
ReplyDeleteI can see both sides of this proverbial coin, and I have a bit of mixed feelings about it. On one hand I don't feel that the government should be able to tell a person what they are allowed to spend their money that they earned or how much of that money they are allowed to spend on it. How would I feel if the government attempted to control how much I spent on my entertainment (books, movies, music, etc.)? On the other hand having a limit in the money allowed to be spent keeps the playing field more level. A candidate cannot sell their vote to the highest bidder) (at least in theory). I have to admit that I am still split on how I feel about this issue.
ReplyDelete