Limit Campaign Spending?

[George Costanza]

But I don't want anybody telling me I can't contribute to the candidate of my choice just because he/she has received some arbitrary maximum allowed.

All well and good, but how much would you be planning on contributing? Twelve million dollars? Because large corporations with an agenda that, believe it or not, may not be in your best interest, are perfectly capable of sinking that much money into the campaign of someone they want to have in their corporate hip pocket once the election is over.

 

[Foxfyre]

But I don't want anybody telling me I can't contribute to the candidate of my choice just because he/she has received some arbitrary maximum allowed.

All well and good, but how much would you be planning on contributing? Twelve million dollars? Because large corporations with an agenda that, believe it or not, may not be in your best interest, are perfectly capable of sinking that much money into the campaign of someone they want to have in their corporate hip pocket once the election is over.

So we elect people of integrity instead of people who want to be in a hip pocket.

But more importantly, we put tough and enforceable laws into place that no form of charity or benevolence or favors of any kind can be dispensed to any person, group, entity, or lesser government by the Federal government. And when there is no ability to buy favors from Congress, you automatically have your campaign contribution reform without infringing on anybody's rights.

 

[my2¢]

I believe our representatives should not be voting on matters in which they have a financial interest. So in regards to campaign spending, the change that I’d like voluntary implemented is a candidate’s pledge to accept donations only through a blind trust. I want individuals, businesses, union, PACs , etc to just send their money to a trust with designation of which candidate’s account is should go towards. Then have the trust provide the candidate a weekly check for the total amount collected.

Secondly, I believe in the privacy of the vote. Thus, I’d like to see reporting of donations be done away with. When somebody contributes they must provide name, address, employer and job position. If the amount contributed to a campaign totals $200 or more, then the information becomes public. I really don’t think I have any right to go to OpenSecrets, submit my zip code and see which of my neighbors are giving to whom?

And "no" to any limits.

 

[Truthmatters]

I think campaign spending should be severly limited and no out of state contributions for in state offices, including congressional seats. Congressional seats are supposed to represent their constituients not mega corps outside of their state.
I think the media be required to give X amount of air time to all candidates as a part of their liscencing.
And air time be limited be limited to a maximum amount. This would help third party candidates to have a more equal footing in advertising.

no limits on grassroots door to door campaining though.

If we added Free airtime and NO BUYING airtime it would help greatly.

Most of the money is spent on TV adds and giving all candidates the same amount of airtime would help to level the field and push the money out.

 

[The Rabbi]

I think campaign spending should be severly limited and no out of state contributions for in state offices, including congressional seats. Congressional seats are supposed to represent their constituients not mega corps outside of their state.
I think the media be required to give X amount of air time to all candidates as a part of their liscencing.
And air time be limited be limited to a maximum amount. This would help third party candidates to have a more equal footing in advertising.

no limits on grassroots door to door campaining though.

If we added Free airtime and NO BUYING airtime it would help greatly.

Most of the money is spent on TV adds and giving all candidates the same amount of airtime would help to level the field and push the money out.

Are you going to include incumbents? So each incumbent gets the same amount of airtime as each challenger, regardless of how much news he might make.
Brilliant. As always.

 

[Truthmatters]

Yes they get the same amount of airtime.

That would incude any interviews during the campaign window.

If you give the incumbant air time you have to match the time on the non incombant side.

No stupid adds , AIRTIME to outline their platforms in person.

 

[Foxfyre]

I think campaign spending should be severly limited and no out of state contributions for in state offices, including congressional seats. Congressional seats are supposed to represent their constituients not mega corps outside of their state.
I think the media be required to give X amount of air time to all candidates as a part of their liscencing.
And air time be limited be limited to a maximum amount. This would help third party candidates to have a more equal footing in advertising.

no limits on grassroots door to door campaining though.

If we added Free airtime and NO BUYING airtime it would help greatly.

Most of the money is spent on TV adds and giving all candidates the same amount of airtime would help to level the field and push the money out.

Who do you suggest pay for this 'free airtime'?

By what constitutional authority can the government require radio or television to provide time to all candidates when time is all that they have to sell? It CAN require a television station to make equal time available to all candidates who PAY for the time so that no station can provide one candidate more of an edge than other. But give the time away free?

I don't see how you're going to do that, and I sure as hell don't want to pay for time for some schmuck that I wouldn't allow to be dog catcher.

 

[The Rabbi]

I think campaign spending should be severly limited and no out of state contributions for in state offices, including congressional seats. Congressional seats are supposed to represent their constituients not mega corps outside of their state.
I think the media be required to give X amount of air time to all candidates as a part of their liscencing.
And air time be limited be limited to a maximum amount. This would help third party candidates to have a more equal footing in advertising.

no limits on grassroots door to door campaining though.

If we added Free airtime and NO BUYING airtime it would help greatly.

Most of the money is spent on TV adds and giving all candidates the same amount of airtime would help to level the field and push the money out.

Who do you suggest pay for this 'free airtime'?

By what constitutional authority can the government require radio or television to provide time to all candidates when time is all that they have to sell? It CAN require a television station to make equal time available to all candidates who PAY for the time so that no station can provide one candidate more of an edge than other. But give the time away free?

I don't see how you're going to do that, and I sure as hell don't want to pay for time for some schmuck that I wouldn't allow to be dog catcher.

Never mind that (although a good point). What happens if the incumbent is doing something newsworthy? Does that count? That is largely the advantage the incumbent has, that people recognize his name. So any memntion ought to count.
The suggestion shows a certain lack of foresight, shall we say?

 

[Modbert]

As much as most of us would like to make it equal for third party candidates, there is one thing we have to consider.

The third party candidates in recent years have not been viable candidates, least on the national level.

Ralph Nader? Cynthia McKinney? Pat Buchanan?

So two racists and a truther, gee, that's swell. And that doesn't even count many of their kooky positions.

Let's not forget other "All-Star" candidates like Bob "I don't even know why I'm here" Barr running as the Libertarian candidate and Chuck Baldwin.

Seriously, I don't mind helping third party candidates get more air time as so they can least get their views out there. However, in this day and age, the internet is quickly replacing newspapers and television. Many people look at their candidates positions, and turn away for good reason, because they're batshit insane and or one issue candidates.

 

[Foxfyre]

If we added Free airtime and NO BUYING airtime it would help greatly.

Most of the money is spent on TV adds and giving all candidates the same amount of airtime would help to level the field and push the money out.

Who do you suggest pay for this 'free airtime'?

By what constitutional authority can the government require radio or television to provide time to all candidates when time is all that they have to sell? It CAN require a television station to make equal time available to all candidates who PAY for the time so that no station can provide one candidate more of an edge than other. But give the time away free?

I don't see how you're going to do that, and I sure as hell don't want to pay for time for some schmuck that I wouldn't allow to be dog catcher.

Never mind that (although a good point). What happens if the incumbent is doing something newsworthy? Does that count? That is largely the advantage the incumbent has, that people recognize his name. So any memntion ought to count.
The suggestion shows a certain lack of foresight, shall we say?

And that is the whole problem with equal time for candidates and the so-called 'Fairness Doctrine'. Who gets to decide what is news and what is campaigning when it comes Presidents, Senators, Congressmen or other public figures running for public office? I know if Fox News interviews one candidate, they offer equal time to the other viable candidates as does our local #1 radio station. Some take them up on the offer and some don't, but if some don't, should the station be required to limit time allotted to another?

Let's face it. Some candidates are just more fun, more interesting, and more stageworthy than others. You'll never find a campaigner who was more fun than Ross Perot was, and everybody, including Oprah, wanted him. It didn't help him get elected though. And he wasn't able to buy more time than anybody else was allowed to buy.

Then should they reinstitute the "Fairness Doctrine" even more sticky wickets crop up. If GE runs an ad promoting clean energy or Exxon Mobil runs an ad promoting energy exploration, do those count as 'campaign time' or 'conservative' or 'liberal' positions? Who do we trust to decide what is 'conservative' and what is 'liberal' in order to achieve the proper balance?

Since there is a finite amount of air time available, it makes sense that no candidate be allowed to monopolize it all and shut everybody else out.

Otherwise I say the government should keep hands off.