The cost of election campaigns should definitely have an upper limit, and it shouldn't be any where near the price it is today. You see politicians campaigning on the ideas of cutting taxes and balancing a budget yet to get elected they spend millions of dollars. Does not make much sense to me.
It is necessary to limit the amount of money that can be spent on political campaigns. Too much money is spent and wasted on television advertisements before an election. This money should go towards helping the country rather than badgering undecided voters. Political Action Committees should not be legal either.
The cost of election campaigns is getting to a point where most people are not able to participate, A better way would be to set an upper limit on campaign expenditures.This way more people would be able to participate and more average people would be able to run for office and represent their neighbors.
I think it's - please forgive the analogy - kicking a dead mule to try to limit the amount of cash that flows into campaigns, so why not restrict the LENGTH of campaigns themselves? After all, no one would tolerate free speech that NEVER HAS TO SHUT UP!
I don't believe we can limit the money, so I propose we limit the time that campaigns can be run prior to the election. We live in an era of instantaneous news in a 24/7 cycle. What we need to know is quickly at our finger tips. There is no reason that we couldn't wrap up campaigns in less than 90 days and I'm being generous here. Haven't we as Americans all had to adjust our lives, personally and professionally to new technologies of which seem to pop up and alter (and frequently threaten) our lives and livelihoods? Why do politicians and their operatives get to exist in this boundary-free unlimited space of ever-flowing money and time? They are OUR representatives and shouldn't enjoy a freedom they would never, for even one minute, consider granting to us. Limit the length of campaigns and the money will be forced to compress to the new boundaries as well.
No, the cost of election campaigns should not have an upper limit, because there is no way to fairly impose one. Each person wants to have free speech. Also, there is not much evidence that all of that extra spending makes a big difference. All that extra spending only changes the vote by a little bit. Ideas win elections, not money. There is no reason to impose a cost limit.
Campaigns shouldn't have an upper limit for spending because it is a free market. There should be individual campaign limits and limits on corporate giving, but an upper limit for a campaign's coffers is unnecessary. Any surplus is passed on to another federal campaign, so contributions are the gifts that keep on giving.