Political campaign funding should be limited to public funding
Debate Rounds (3)
I accept your challenge.
Political funding should not be limited to public funding.
If we were able to move to a publicly funded campaign system the focus could be set on issues at hand and also open the floor for other people to run for office with varying opinions.
If candidates were all given the same amount of campaign financing it would put everyone on an even playing field. Often times, democrat and republican candidates are the only ones who are able to procure enough financing to be able to run for office. There are several other political parties whose stances are overlooked just because of a lack of corporate or private donations.
Buckley v. Valeo (1976)
The Supreme Court ruled that "The First Amendment affords the broadest protection to such political expression in order 'to assure (the) unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and social changes desired by the people."
So to prohibit private funding and move to public funding of elections, it would be a violation of the First amendment rights to free expression, because campaign contributions are a type of expression.
I understand your argument regarding third parties but, (not meaning to seem harsh), that's just the way history has rolled the dice. We can't change the domination of the two party system. But I reiterate, if we were to move to public funding, it would be a violation of the 1st amendment.
If we were to remove large private donations, citizens could find other ways to express their political views such as volunteering to aid the campaign.
The argument about third parties, I personally believe is part of the reason that politics today has become somewhat stagnant. If we always did things "the way history has rolled the dice" several horrible things from the past would still be considered the norm today. Several supreme court rulings have been overturned because the political or social environment changes over the years.
I do not believe that moving to publicly funded campaigns would stifle anyone's First amendment rights. In most elections it is either the far right or the far left that are the only options. While many people might be on the poles of political views there are, I believe the majority, that fall somewhere in between. Opening the floor to more than two parties would allow more views to be expressed and would give people more options.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by browley14 2 years ago
|Who won the debate:||-|
Reasons for voting decision: I don't think that it should go to a completely public system, however I do believe that businesses should not be able to give, it should all be from individuals.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.