Politics, News & Issues >
US Elections (Other)
Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedShould there be spending limits on political campaigns?
Title endorsed in part by:
Results so far:
| Yes | 83% | 420 votes | Total: 503 votes | |
| No | 17% | 83 votes |
Yes
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesIntroducing spending limits on political campaigns could be the best equalizing solution for eliminating disparities in candidates running for office. If all political candidates were only allowed to spend a predetermined amount of money on their campaigns, the public could then receive the equivalent degree of exposure presented by each candidate. This should be the real objective, equal exposure by all candidates that is. By insuring that all candidates receive the exact same platform in which to present their political position, the public would then receive the equivalent amount of information about each candidate.
By standardizing campaign platforms, the focus becomes on equal exposure for presentation of issues to the public thereby creating a level playing field for candidates to present their positions on issues. Furthermore, all candidates have this very same opportunity to be exposed to the public creating a greater cross section of leaders to choose from. This will enable the people to determine the best possible leadership for our government chosen from all candidates equally, not merely from those most financially capable of manipulating the system to their advantage despite the will of the people.
For the purposes of representation, free enterprise is not meant to mean manipulation of the system for personal gain despite the wishes of the people. Free enterprise means manipulation of the system for the benefit of profit and/or gain within the guidelines of the system. The only way those guidelines can be equitable and beneficial for the entire commonwealth is by selection of leaders capable of insuring the rules of the republic are representative of the public and not some manifestation manipulated by some individuals experienced in deception.
Placing spending limits on political campaigns really indicates another underlying desire. The desire for equal opportunity for exposure, therefore, along with spending limits is the need for additional regulations dictating and outlining the process in order to insure that every candidate has an equal opportunity to convey information regarding his or her position on specific political issues.
Opponents of such legislation would argue that this type of regulation would be extreme. This would in fact be correct if people would not attempt to test the ethical foundations of the system. This test stems from the unspoken universal double standard that suggests that everything is legal unless you are caught. This double standard, along with the morally bankrupt persistent belief that the ethics of business somehow differs from ethics in the home, "Do unto others as you would have done unto you," is a theme universally applicable to both family members and close friends as it is when conducting business.
Suggesting that somehow the mindless pursuit of wealth and power is subject to differing rules of ethics than the model used when interacting with one's children and family members is more indicative of a misguided moral compass than any sort of ethical conduct. In addition, most business classes tend to support the need for ethical conduct in business.
Political leadership in a republic requires an even higher ethical standard, an ethical standard that holds morality supreme. Maintaining a degree of freedom of expression and points of view requires the epitome of ethical conduct when representing the commonwealth. The foundations of the American experiment not only understood this, they conveyed and reinforced this principle, holding its consequences in highest regard. Exercising anything less is tantamount to despotism.
To summarize, spending limits on political campaigns is but one aspect of effective representation designed to place all candidates equally before the populace. In addition, the ethics of free enterprise is a free market system; the ethics of leadership is ethical representation of the commonwealth. This is achieved by ethical conduct and equal opportunities for all to convey their perspectives to the public in order for the public to decide who will best represent and serve the interests of the people.
More importantly, it is the politician's job to serve the people, not the people's job to serve the politician, something that seems to have been forgotten in the recent years. We have a government by the people for the people, not a people by the government for the government. How can the people know who to best select if all proponents are not equally given the opportunity to convey their views for examination?
"The Republican form of government is the highest form of government: but because of this it requires the highest type of human nature, a type nowhere at present existing."Herbert Spencer
Learn more about this author, Darrin A Yarbrough.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
No
The drive to limit the money spent on political campaigns in particular, as well as so-called "campaign finance reform" laws in general, collapses under the weight of its own internal contradictions. On the one hand, we believe that the political class is hopelessly corrupt, and yet on the other hand, we trust the political class to set rules for fair elections in a way that does not ultimately benefit the political class.
Spending lots of money on an election campaign does not guarantee electoral success,(ask Mitt Romney, Steve Forbes and Ross Perot) but electoral history suggests that insufficient spending does not breed success.
The 1974 Campaign Finance Law, passed by Congress in the wake of the Watergate scandal, placed a $25,000 spending limit on Congressional campaigns. This limit was found to be an unconstitutional violation of free speech rights by the Supreme Court in Buckley v. Valeo.
In enacting the spending limit, Congress never explained the rationale for this number. Why $25,000 and not $30,000? or $20,000. The most revealing aspect of the $25,000 limit was this: In 1972, the last election before the Campaign Finance Act, not one incumbent congressman lost his/her seat to a challenger who spent $25,000 or less. It is examples like this that lend credence to the charge that so-called "campaign finance reform" initiatives are simply "incumbent protection" acts in disguise. Trusting the political class to set fair spending limits on campaigns is like asking Willie Sutton to guard the bank vaults. It won't work. Even assuming the good faith of the lawmakers, spending limits hurt challengers far more than they hurt incumbents who have the media's attention when they make speeches, propose bills, and show up at ribbon cutting ceremonies for this or that project they funded.
The fact is that political campaigns cost money and time, and the higher the stakes the more money and time it takes. Now if you are running for school board in your town (as I have done), you might be able to get away with knocking on a few hundred doors and making some phone calls. But even there, it takes a few thousand dollars for you and your fellow candidates to get the word out. Now if you are seeking state or federal office, then your geographic area becomes too large for one person or even a handful of people to cover. Since you cannot clone yourself, you need to attract people to your cause to help you out, and that takes money. Even if you have a an army of volunteers, you still need to pay for phone banks, and you better have a campaign treasurer who knows election law, which is a byzantine maze of rules that serve as traps for the unwary. If Jimmy Stewart were running for Congress today, his campaign would never have gotten off the ground, as he would have had to spend all his time and money in court defending himself.
In sum, spending limits are unworkable and unconstitutional.
Learn more about this author, Matthias Deangelo.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
- US Elections (Other)
- Is part of the president's job to inspire the American people?
- Do you agree with the House of Representatives that candidates for Congress shouldn't be able to pay their spouses for campaign work?
- Should absentee ballots be allowed in US elections?
- Should photo identification be required to vote?
- Should US senators and Senate candidates start filing their campaign finance reports electronically, as House members and presidential candidates already do?
