There are better ways to spend this money. billions of dollars are wasted on voters that already are dedicated to a party and aren't changing. Democrats will always vote democratic because they are ignorant. This country doesn't understand that voting is not who can "win" its who can fix this country. I am very disappointed about voters decisions. I am going to be that guy that is saying told ya so when this country goes down.
Funds should come from the party represented through collected donations from various political camps without the candidate knowing where the funds came from to avoid favoritism, and not exceed a certain amount for either party, to avoid the higher campaign funds to be the contributing factor for election of the candidate. The public will have fairer decision making factors to vote for their candidate.
We need for the amount of money to be spent on campaigns
to be around $5,000 and it must come out of the candidates personal account so that there will be no legal blackmailing going on or corporations expecting favors. This is important as Mick Romney is trying to buy the presidency. The man is so out of touch with the average person that he should not even be running for this office.
The ruling on Citizens United this January gave corporations the right to spend as much money on political campaigns as they want. In a nation where money controls media and advertising, which have the greatest influence on how citizens think and vote, limits to spending are crucial if the desired result is a government that is responsive to citizens rather than to corporate interests.
When someone campaign's for a job they should pay for it out of there pockets, not ours. They should be limited to what they can pay or raise though a fundraiser only. They also should not be paid when taking time off from their job to campaign for re-election. They are not working so they shouldn't be paid.
Without any restrictions on campaign finance, the richest candidate is strongly favored to win, regardless of merit. In a true democracy, someone should be able to run a successful campaign, even if they do not come from a rich background. Campaign finance laws are necessary to give a diverse set of candidates a fair chance at winning.
If you look at the current health care policy, it was crafted by people who make their money from health care. It was not what was good for the country, but what was good for them. What did we end up with? We now have a watered-down national health care system that was the worst of both worlds, still exorbitant with the government wrapped up in it.
Politicians should be limited on their campaign spending. If they are not, the election becomes even more of a popularity contest than it already is. One in every five of these people should be dead anyway. There a too many people, and a lot of them are stupid politicians. Most of them are rich and don't deserve it.
In order for the playing field to remain level, all candidates who are campaigning should be subject to the same limits and regulations. Similar to the way school student councils prohibit buying votes, the government should enact the same rules. Campaigns should be kept clean and legal, and ethics should always be one of the most important points a candidate should think about.
I strongly support restrictions on political fund raising and campaign spending to guard democracy against the pressure of large amounts of money from institutions and from wealthy individuals. Money from concentrated sources distorts democracy in two ways. On the fund raising side, dependence on major donors makes candidates reluctant to take stands that the major donors would be opposed to. On the spending side, the battle of ideas we'd like to see in a campaign can be fought on very unfair terms if one side is armed with massive amounts of money. Ideas may end up prevailing by the brute force of spending, rather than by winning over voters on the merit of the ideas.
I support having limits and regulations placed on candidates related to how they raise / spend funds during campaigns.
Without limits and regulations, candidates will be able to spend as much as they want, which may be unfair to the other candidate who is also running but doesn't have as much access to funds. Candidates should be on an equal footing; our government should not be determined by how much a person advertises.
I definitely believe that there should be limits on campaign contributions. The wealthy and the large corporations are able to buy influence with candidates once they are elected. This puts the middle class and the poor at a disadvantage since they cannot afford to compete with the people able to contribute huge amounts of cash. I think this gives a certain segment of society entirely too much say in what goes on with our elected officials. We all need to be on a more level playing field.
The future of elected officials will largely depend on how much money the candidate can raise and spend. The recent decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Citizens United decision allows endless amounts of undisclosed dollars to be provided to any candidate in any election. This will quickly create lopsided situations, where candidates that are supportive of the business community will get a high degree of funding, and candidates that are more in favor of labor, the environment and unions will be left with substantially less funding. The only alternative is to pass legislation that will level the playing field. Either that, or only pro-business elected officials will be in office in the coming years.
All political campaigns should require monitoring of expenses and fund-raising methods because all those seeking political office should be held to the same standards. Monitoring of campaigns will also help to ensure that the needs of the voters (and not campaign contributors) will be listened to and met, once the candidate is assigned to office.
Just how many poor people achieve political power?
I think the fundraising done on behalf of political candidates could use a complete overhaul. A candidate's political potential shouldn't be overshadowed by an inability to raise enough money to help him/her in his/her campaign. Rich candidates more than likely have rich friends who can make generous contributions on their behalf. Even if there's a limit on the amount, a lot of wealthy individuals making the maximum contribution is much more than a less wealthy candidate can hope to get. Money should not be a factor in getting someone elected. It absolutely should not. The qualifications of the candidate should determine this. The kind of person someone is can?t be measured in dollar signs.
It never fails in the U.S., the person that spends the most on their campaign always winds the race, and this has resulted in a very unbalance system in desperate need of regulation. I think that campaigns should be publicly funded. I think that all candidates should receive a certain amount of media slots and that debates should be truly independently hosted. This should help level the playing field so that the people voting have real choices when it comes to those running for office. Until this occurs those who run for office will be from a very small percentage of the population and likely their policies will reflect the desires of that population.
I think there should definitely be limits on how much money candidates can spend on campaigns. First, only donations from individual citizens should be allowed. Second, there should be a limit on how much is spent, to even the playing field. Third, I think that the government should give each candidate equal amounts of TV and radio advertising time for no cost to the candidate.
My personal belief is that candidates should not only be required to limit where they get their money from but also how much they use. When our politicians are supposed to represent the people, they shouldn't be allowed to accept donations from companies and organizations that don't represent the people. Doing this creates a country that is not of the people, by the people and for the people, but of the special interest, 'buy' the special interests, and for the special interests.
The possibility to be elected to a political office is the right of every American. However, it seems to be that only those with money will ever get the opportunity. John Doe from down the street may have all the qualifications to be a great leader but because he lacks the monetary ability to run for public office it will never be seen. There will never again be a senator, congressman or president that has not spent millions of dollars campaigning for his/her seat. This is not the American way and therefore I feel there should be limits set on campaign spending.
Buying votes is a continuing problem during campaigns. When a candidate spends millions of dollars on his/her campaign, it usually ends up that the wrong candidate gets elected. Candidates who go out and spend unreasonable amounts of money usually (but not always)have a great advantage over the other candidates who are probably just as well qualified for the position but don't have the funds to promote themselves. Voters need to look carefully at the candidates, their record, their morality, and their views.
There should be regulations on candidates related to raising and spending campaign funds to ensure that elections are not "bought" through contributions and to make sure that expenditures of campaign funds are proper. The contributors to a campaign need to feel certain that their contributions are used for legitimate campaign expenditures. The public should be certain that the candidates are independent, not a puppet of any one contributor.
There should be limits and regulations placed on candidates related to how they raise / spend funds during campaigns because otherwise offices would just go to the highest bidder or the dirtiest player. Transparency is a great tool of democracy, so knowing what politicians are doing keeps them as honest as possible, and so many existing laws are about transparency and fairness.
Limits and regulations should be placed on candidates fundraising activities simply to maintain a sense of equity in the democratic process. Without some type of oversight, each election becomes little more than the sale of government to the highest bidder. In the end, the majority loses, as the citizens of modest means really have no say in the process.
If politics was free of corruption, it wouldn't matter, but since that's hardly the case, we do need to have limits and regulations in place. Without them, a candidate can have an unfair advantage if he is willing to take money from organizations that have their own agenda, since he will be able to advertise and get his name out there better with more money. There should be a cap on it, and let their stand on issues be their platform, not who can get their face out there more.
A winner of an election shouldn't be determined by how much money they can raise and spend. The playing field should be evened out by assigning a determined amount of money a candidate can spend on a campaign, which will show voters how the candidate manages and spends his money thereby providing a picture of how he will spend OUR money if elected.
By having no limits we are forced to choose between candidates that have already been chosen by the rich / corporations. Really, to the average voter is no choice. No choice = no voice. With no voice freedom of speech means nothing. we are allowing our voice to be ignored because we only allow the rich to run. Not the most qualified, not the one with the best ideas. Just the rich or corporate sponsored. Less money in politics. Limit total amount that can be spent to a reasonably attainable amount. More parties / candidates to choose from. Choice = voice.
The vast majority of campaign contributions comes from large corporations. Should our elected representatives be representing corporate interests in order to secure their contributions for subsequent elections, or should they be thinking about how to best represent their constituents. Placing a strict limit on campaign contributions would eliminate this problem.
If they don't have limits, they would spend way too much, and people would look up to them and do just like them. Also if stuff is handed to them, or people work for other people, then they won't understand or learn how to work. They also won't learn how to save or accomplish anything in life, because to them, there will be no need.
People are spending way too much money on campaigns that can be given to charity or anything else. All candidates should have a level playing field when it comes to how much money they get to spend on their campaign and companies and individuals should only be allowed to donate a small amount of money so its more fair.
Its not fair that the rich get to decide who runs for office and the rest of us get to choose from among their choices. Only candidates that represent the interests of the very rich get to run for office. Our system is so blatantly and obviously unethical that I cannot even believe its legal.
The election process is not democratic if it is fueled by money. Also, the money could be put towards more important things such as controlling the deficit. It is obscene the amount of money that is spent on elections. This also leads to corruption by corporations donating millions to a candidate so they will do whatever it is they want them to do.
In order to vote, it shouldn't be about listening to promises; it should be solid facts from an outside source(s). No advertising on television, or radio, no news broadcasts should be allowed. You should have to read and find your own information. Voters shouldn't be manipulated by any advertising. If this was to happen, we would be in the top ten countries, because politicians wouldn't have to be corrupt in order to get re-elected.
People with more money have a bigger impact than those who don't. That's really crappy. If Bill Gates ran for president against, say, me, he would win. He has more money than I ever will. If he's allowed to spend however much he wants, then the outcome is almost guaranteed.
So the reasoning behind Citizens United decision is that for certain entities that have hit the limit of donations now have another channel for donating UNLIMITED AMOUNTS of money. CLEARLY, THIS IS OUTRIGHT BUYING ELECTIONS. Hmmm, a tycoon can donate millions (this is sort of like unlimited amounts of funds). But me, I only make an average salary. If I donated unlimited amounts of funds, it would take up my entire salary WAY BEFORE I EVER HIT A MILLION BUCKS! Then, I would have no money to buy food or pay rent, etc. Wow, those conservative Supreme Court justices who made this into law have very corrupt thinking. Clearly my 1 vote weighs less than the millionaires' vote!
There should be not limits on campaign contributions. This is America and we are supposed to be a nation of free men. Limiting contributions, limits a mans freedom. I feel it also intrudes on his right of free speech. The 1st amendment is to protect just this sort of thing. Only a Communist would support limits on a mans freedom of speech.
Everyone has the right to believe as they choose and express themselves in any way they want. If you are allowed to say whatever you want, what is wrong with contributing to a candidate's fund and helping to make people aware of your ideas and beliefs? Contributing to a knowledgeable and well-informed public is important.
Limiting spending is bad for the economy, and it is a direct violation of American's Rights. The more you regulate the funds alotted to be donated, the more loop holes and indirect issues one will have. PACS and Super PACS though slightly less defined are very good examples of the loop holes and issues donors have with contribuing to there political affiliation.