In your opinion, should campaign finance be limited? Why or why not? Consider the following in your argument - the Constitution, soft money versus hard money, historical data (200+ words). Please respond to at least one other classmate's post.
15 Comments
Courtney
12/4/2018 11:04:16 am
In my opinion, I believe that campaign finance should be limited. This refers to all the finances and money that are raised to help the parties and candidates. It helps promotes candidates and promote political parties. Political parties, organizations with charities, and political action committees in the United States are funds to keep all types of campaigns and parties alive. I think it should be limited so people have a fair chance of showing a wide variety of the population their campaigns. Say the republican gets an a million dollar budget, the democrats get a five hundred thousand dollar budget, then the third party candidate gets a five hundred dollar budget. This means that the third party candidate has no chance against the republican, and the democrats don’t get much of a change running against the republicans. I believe that it is totally unfair to the third party, since they’ll have the chance to run, but won’t have enough money to get anywhere in their campaign because the lack of money. They could be a good candidate/ runner for the campaign but just because the lack of money, they wouldn’t be able to get anywhere. I think it’s a corrupt system and it needs to be changed.
Reply
Nathan
12/4/2018 08:28:27 pm
I agree with you Courtney, both parties should have an equal chance when running and that is very important.
Reply
Anna
12/5/2018 10:38:57 pm
I agree with you, every party should have an equal chance to be able to be elected because new opinions about things are very important.
Reply
Nathan
12/4/2018 08:27:22 pm
Campaign finance should be limited because it would change the perception completely that voters have of campaigners. Too much money is being spent on elections and not enough is going towards what actually matters in the world and especially, this country. Some voters feel as if their vote is trying to be bought by one political party or the other. This is because, political parties spend billions of dollars advertising such as sending voters too much mail, spam texting them, constant commercials, etc. Voters get aggravated by this and some end up voting towards the person who sent them less stuff, or sadly, they do not vote at all. In the past, George Washington actually got into trouble from trying to “buy” the people’s votes. He supposedly gave out about a quart of rum, beer, and hard cider to each of the 391 voters in the district. Abraham Lincoln also said that if too much money is put into few hands, that the republic (democracy) will be destroyed. He is right, if this keeps happening, people will not like elections and not want to vote. They will want something new. The U.S. needs to change this, and change it sooner rather than later so that they may be able to get a huge amount of voters that have been lost in the past few elections.
Reply
McKay Shockley
12/5/2018 10:26:35 am
I agree with you Nathan, more money needs to be directed to bettering this country and relations with other countries.
Reply
Zizhe Liu
12/17/2018 08:57:26 am
I agree with you, money can do much more important things rather than campaign election.
Reply
Adam Buell
12/20/2018 02:07:29 pm
I agree with you Nathan, instead of using money for their own advancement, campaigners need to use it for better causes.
Reply
McKay Shockley
12/5/2018 10:25:20 am
In my opinion, I think that campaign finance should be limited. Campaign finance restrictions has both pros and cons but in my opinion, the pros outweigh the cons. Some of the cons are that voter communities will become more segregated. If each party that had a candidate that wanted to run, then smaller parties couldn’t support the bigger, more known parties. More money is also going into every election to support every candidate that wants to run. There are also a lot of pros to campaign finance restrictions. One of them being that every political party that wants a candidate to run, can run and have financial support for their campaign. Candidates also have more time to focus on specific issues. Funding laws can clearly direct where money can be raised, who raises it, and how it’s raised. Instead of having candidates deal with this, they can focus on specific issues happening in the current time; this also creates the possibility of having more representation for each district. Hard money and soft money also play a big role in campaign finance. With campaign finance restrictions, big groups and corporations won’t be able to contribute so much money without little work for the money. Everybody has a limit on what they can donate. I think it is a good idea to restrict campaign finance.
Reply
Landon
12/5/2018 11:31:08 pm
I agree that the limits would mean that the people who work hard for the money that they donate will have more represetation.
Reply
doris
12/17/2018 02:16:00 pm
i agree with you.
Reply
Anna Pittman
12/5/2018 10:37:44 pm
I believe that campaign finances should be limited because too much money is being put into the campaign when it could be going into more important things for the United States. Campaign finances are given to each candidate so they can get their message out to each voter. The incumbent gets the largest amount of money because they are most likely to win. Another candidate does not get allotted as much money, and if there is a third party candidate, then they are given a lower amount of money. This is a negative effect because it increases the chance of always having the same party be elected. If the incumbent for one year is a democrat and voters see a majority of campaigns for that person then on the ballot they recognize that name and vote for them. This is especially negative when House of Representatives and Senators are being elected because they have no term limits. If the United States continues to do it this way, then the United States will not change parties and will not be able to hear new opinions. Lastly, this makes it almost impossible for third party candidates to get elected because they do not have the money to campaign so not a lot of people will recognize their name on the ballot and will not vote for them.
Reply
Landon
12/5/2018 11:29:18 pm
In my opinion, campaign finance should be limited, because it gives too much power to the two- party system, and it takes away from everyone’s voice being heard. In today’s world, whoever has the most money is the one everyone wants to listen to. Currently in the United States, the amount of money that a candidate or a campaign committee can receive from an independent person is $2750, but there is not limit on the amount of money the can receive from groups of people. Political Action Committee’s (PACs) give money to the candidate that they think is the best to represent them. PACs support the incumbent in most cases, which means that the same person in Congress can hold their position for several years. If all of the money coming from PACs is going to the best republican and the best democratic candidates, it takes away from third party candidates, and that is a big factor in why we live in a two- party system. Everyone’s voice should be allowed to be heard, and if people were to hear from different political groups, the US could be more politically diverse. Limits allow candidates to focus more on real- time issues. This may be a huge factor in why the numbers of people who vote is decreasing, and it needs to change soon.
Reply
Zizhe Liu
12/17/2018 08:56:19 am
In my opinion, campaign finance should be limited. Because if campaign finance is not limited, at this internet time period, it’s not people pick a best person for president, people are actually picking a best finance croup. At this internet time period, people will get influenced by the things around him, advertising is one of them. Just like what Facebook did when Donald Trump is running for president, this is when campaign finance is not limited would happen, election should be the competition between parties and people, not another business war between these big companies. Another thing is unlimited campaign finance make people get tired of it. I am sure that you must have a moment get tired of watching ad, people spend money just to waste other people’s time? Not OK, like for me, as a person who do not like political and do not care about election, I’d rather watch some funny ads then watch a boring political ads. Another thing about campaign finance limitation is people do not like a perfect person, because they are not real. At this internet time period, a “fake” person meas who is getting surrounded by cameras, and you defindly do not want that kind of person lead your country.
Reply
doris
12/17/2018 02:15:30 pm
In my opinion, campaign finance should be limited. Campaign finance refer to all funds raised for the promotion of candidates, political parties or policy initiatives and referendum. Charities and political action networks are tools for raising money to sustain campaigns. In the 21st century, in an Internet age of diversity, People are easily affected by online virtual information. If competitive funds are unlimited, That means political parties may spread many virtual information online to make people believe in them. And choose them. This is dangerous for a country And unfair for the people Important that the campaign funds are limited, that they can be the most objective, the most persuasive, the most direct.Since most of the campaign funds come from Banks, enterprises and other wealthy interest groups, this means that if the campaign funds are not limited, some small parties will have no chance to win at all. At the same time, people will be misled by some fake news advertisements and make wrong choices. It is unfair to blind the truth and distort the truth. So in general, restricting campaign funding does more good than harm.
Reply
Adam Buell
12/20/2018 02:06:23 pm
In my opinion, campaign finance should indeed be limited. There are many reasons for why this should be limited for several different reasons. The first reason in which campaign finance should be limited is that when too much money is given to one candidate, whether it is through a political action committee, or just an average person donating to a candidate’s cause, too much money towards a campaign can give too much of an unfair advantage to a certain candidate or campaigner and that person could lose sight of the important issues that their campaign is based on. Another reason campaign finance should be limited is with the extra money used by campaigns, it can used to go towards more negative things, such as spam phone calls, texts and emails, which was seen much more during the 2018 Congressional Midterms. Spam messages are something that become too much of a burden at a certain point and it can make someone have a negative view of a candidate. One final reason that campaign finance should be limited is to limit the number of campaign ads you see on TV, which again, close to the elections, is virtually nonstop and it shines a negative light on the person who is running the ad, or the ad is attacking.
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
May 2019
Categories |