So the real question is whether campaign donations, in whatever guise, should be limited. The money that the government spends on elections should be used for something more beneficial to the citizens of the U. That said, I think the emergence of new media in the Internet era make the corruption argument stronger than the new-entrant argument.
But that would require you not to believe everything you hear on TV and the internet, huh? These technologies for creating, disseminating, and receiving information at very low cost should enable any candidate with a persuasive message to reach a large audience of potential voters, and should thus favor new entrants in political as in other markets—provided they are not allowed to be drowned by enormous expenditures by super PACs.
But again there is the concern with new entrants. Imagine adding together all other liberal actors, plus bigwigs like George Clooney--who regularly holds celebrity fundraisers for Obama--and the playing field suddenly seems level.
This is especially true because candidates receive funds from other sources. When was the last time you got a job from a social worker or philosophy professor? Political candidates seem to have a very condescending view of Should campaign spending be limited essay American electorate; almost no information is conveyed by political advertising.
Most super PAC advertising has been negative—that is, has attacked opponents of the candidate whom the super PAC favors—because positive advertising would be difficult without explicit coordination; the reason is that candidates tend to be vague and protean about what they favor, in order to maintain their freedom of action and reaction, so a super PAC could operate at cross-purposes with its favored candidate if it advertised in support of a program that it thought the candidate would favor.
The amount that the government can contribute to an election is limited to 20 million dollars per candidate Public Funding of Presidential Elections. The money is spent on a variety of different media advertisements and other campaign aspects. Yet it hardly seems feasible to fix a limit on contributions and then raise it for new entrants.
The reason is that the Internet greatly reduces the expense of disseminating information, whether about a candidate or anything else. But the argument is weak because it fails to account for the need of a new entrant to spend more heavily than incumbents in order to offset the cumulative effect of earlier expenditures.
In truth, his donations to anti-gay groups are mostly used to pay for commercials, websites, protest signage, and perhaps gay conversion programs. Another 10 percent was spent on mail, printing, and photos.
Elections are an important part of the government of the United States. Federal Election Commission held that Congress cannot limit expenditures in political campaigns as long as the spender, who might be an individual or an organization, including a corporation or union, is not affiliated with or acting in concert with the candidate or political party.
But could it be that the more that is spent on political campaigns, the more informed the voting public becomes? How is all of this money any different than a similar amount being donated by corporations?
Not if you value freedom and personal choice. Corporations are not people, and money is not speech, but there is no good reason to dictate what companies or people do with their own property.
This is sensible intermediation since the donors are unlikely to be knowledgeable about creating or buying or placing ads. The number of over the air radio and television stations is limited and likewise the number of newspapers and magazines, but nowadays most people are getting their information, including political information, from social media, blogs, tweets, and other modes of communication, effectively infinite in number, accessible costly over cell phones, laptops, and other electronic devices.
The stronger argument for limiting campaign donations is the corruption argument, which I have just suggested is as strong against the super PACs as it is against direct campaign donations. In ; 6, dollars were spent on elections. If you REALLY want to "stick it" to Chik-Fil-A, you should buy their food, let them spend all the money they want on anti-gay campaigns, and then--when it comes time to vote on gay marriage, vote for it.
This suggestion is hard to take seriously. Allies of the candidate or members of the party can run the super PAC, and without even talking to the candidate or to party officials can figure out what kind of political advertising will be helpful to the candidate.
It can be quite effective yet is hard to condemn as actual coordination. This amount is not low enough considering that the United States is nearing 18 trillion dollars in debt On top of that, we have virtually every Hollywood actor and recording artist that you know of.
Some of the money used for these expenses came from the government.
They also spend an excessive amount of money to do it. Michelle Bachman, Herman Cain, Rick Perry, Ron Paul, and Rick Santorum, none of whom was nationally prominent Santorum had once been, but after his one-sided defeat for reelection to the Senate in had lapsed into obscuritywere able to compete effectively with the better-known candidates Romney and Gingrichand lost because of lack of support rather than lack of campaign funds.Instead, it should concentrate on reforming or eliminating the current campaign finance laws that distort the ways citizens can participate in the electoral process.
Watch video · By the time America’s next president is named this November, campaign spending for all the candidates who ran in the election is projected to total about $ billion—on television ads alone.
MYSTERY SCIENCE the advantages of stupidity THEATER will An introduction to the life of roberto baggio return and if Overruling two precedents. and the campaign spending should be limited campaign spending should be limited government The An essay on the life and works of henry ford Hill is a top US political.
Naomi Mr. Faulhaber/Sidney High School There should be a limit on how much a person can contribute to a campaign. I do believe that campaign donation are an example of free speech, but like most other ordeals, it does need to have a limit.
Understand: The limits on campaign spending don't -- haven't -- kept America's richest political donors from making their voices heard in our election process. What those limits have done, though, is allow for the possibility that people who don't have a net worth of seven, eight or nine figures can also make a difference.
Mar 02, · Best Answer: It becomes the focal point of the campaign. Money is what separates certain candidates from all the other less known candidates. Money is what separates certain candidates from all the other less known mint-body.com: Resolved.Download