Amazon.com Widgets

Should limits and regulations be placed on candidates related to how they raise / spend funds during campaigns?

  • $16 trillion deficit

    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.

  • Equal regulated funds

    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.

  • People's vote should determine a limit or cap on campaign monies

    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.

  • Regulations should be placed on campaign finance so that corporations do not have the power to continue to hollow out our government at every level.

    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.

    Posted by: EnchantingJordan89
  • Campaigning for a job is just like applying for a job and they should pay for it.

    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.

    Posted by: Ci3nInvader
  • Yes, because campaign finance laws level the playing field.

    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.

    Posted by: BrokenMarvin34
  • I think there should be spending limits, because the money is all coming from deep-pocketed interests.

    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.

    Posted by: tagpixels
  • Candidates should be limited in campaign spending or it is just a big popularity contest.

    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.

    Posted by: ComplexRoscoe
  • All candidates should have the same regulations for finances during a campaign to keep the playing field level.

    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.

    Posted by: TedieDelight
  • Yes, because campaign finance and spending restrictions serve democracy.

    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.

    Posted by: LuciaL
  • I am for limitless campaign contributions, it is a free country after all.

    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.

    Posted by: BriaBlacken
  • F u K UUUU

    Fuccc u harrriiisonnn
    fuccc u harrriiisonnn
    fuccc u harrriiisonnn
    fuccc u harrriiisonnn
    fuccc u harrriiisonnn
    fuccc u harrriiisonnn
    fuccc u harrriiisonnn
    fuccc u harrriiisonnn
    fuccc u harrriiisonnn
    fuccc u harrriiisonnn
    fuccc u harrriiisonnn
    fuccc u harrriiisonnn
    fuccc u harrriiisonnn
    fuccc u harrriiisonnn
    fuccc u harrriiisonnnfuccc u harrriiisonnnfuccc u harrriiisonnn
    fuccc u harrriiisonnn
    fuccc u harrriiisonnn

  • I am for limitless campaign contributions, it is a free country after all

    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.

  • I am for limitless campaign contributions, it is a free country after all

    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.

  • Fuck you cock

    Fuck yourself s k k k k k k k k k k lk l kl k k ji ji j i iij ij ij i ji j oijwqperqwperqwpaorqw jejejej k m m m m m m m m k k k k k k k kk kk k k k k

  • Why limit free 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.

  • Speech = Money

    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.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.