Should candidates have a set limit on how much they can spend in a election?

[Elrathin]

I can see pros and cons to limiting the amount of money a candidate can spend on an election.

The major pro is that obviously that the normal person can run without having to have multi-millions of dollars to do it.

The obvious con though is that if people would pay more attention to politics, face recognition would not play a major factor in elections nor would the need to spend an enormous amount of money on elections from candidates.

What say you?

[bobbylien]

It doesn't matter, the politicians will find a way around it. Swiftboat vets, moveon.org, etc...

[lily]

If you don't raise millions of $$$$ then you don't have a chance. While you are raising those millions of $$$$, the people giving it to you expect something in return. This goes for local politcs as well.

[Professor]

I do think a limit should be set, to even the playing field. However it does need to be reasonable so the canidates can still campaign.

[firefox]

It doesn't matter, the politicians will find a way around it. Swiftboat vets, moveon.org, etc...


This is true. So-called "reform" laws only make it harder for new competition to enter the arena. It's rather Orwellian, if you think about it.

[MAP2010.wireless]

I think candidates should be able to raise as much money as they want but I think people wishing to run should have the same amount of airtime. What this would do is say you can't have mass marketing advertising nor can you place an ad with-out handing out the souce/s of funding, and candidates with less would be able to speak out just as much. I think if a candidate wants to make a Movie and give away free tickets they should be able to even if it cost 1,000,000's to make. But it would only have so much airtime, its the amount of airtime that counts not how much money the spend.

YouTube and MySpace are going to become places of free Advertising for candidates.

Mark