Limit Campaign Spending?

[Flopper]

The British limit the amount that can be spent on political campaigns. The focus is on expenditure not contributions. For members of parliament, I think it works out to about 100,000 pounds or a $150,000 US. As a result, campaigns are much cheaper and shorter. Would you like to see similar restrictions placed on congressional candidates?

Campaign Finance: United Kingdom ? Law Library of Congress

 

[WillowTree]

now you want limitations,, cause come november you gonna get you ass kicked..

 

[Flopper]

now you want limitations,, cause come november you gonna get you ass kicked..

This would be opposed by both parties. The Supreme Court struct down spending limits in 1976. Since then the campaigning business has become a multi-billion dollar industry.

 

[uscitizen]

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.

 

[Harry Dresden]

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.

im all for it....everyone running has a ceiling....if you go over it....your done campaigning....i think its ridiculous to spend a billion dollars to get a 400,000 thousand dollar a year job....

 

[Nate]

Sounds like a great plan! Hell while we're at it can we PLEASE put term limits on Senators.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

When there's a limit on what the government can spend in our name maybe we can talk about limiting campaign contributions...maybe

 

[The T]

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.

im all for it....everyone running has a ceiling....if you go over it....your done campaigning....i think its ridiculous to spend a billion dollars to get a 400,000 thousand dollar a year job....

Ah but is the prestige worth it? Or is it the power to where they can make up their campaign losses by having that power?

 

[Tom Clancy]

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.

This.

 

[nraforlife]

the british limit the amount that can be spent on political campaigns. The focus is on expenditure not contributions. For members of parliament, i think it works out to about 100,000 pounds or a $150,000 us. As a result, campaigns are much cheaper and shorter. Would you like to see similar restrictions placed on congressional candidates?

campaign finance: United kingdom ? Law library of congress

no

 

[California Girl]

The British limit the amount that can be spent on political campaigns. The focus is on expenditure not contributions. For members of parliament, I think it works out to about 100,000 pounds or a $150,000 US. As a result, campaigns are much cheaper and shorter. Would you like to see similar restrictions placed on congressional candidates?

Campaign Finance: United Kingdom ? Law Library of Congress

It is not as a result of the funding that campaigns are shorter. It is because the Prime Minister is able to call an election when he sees fit whereas we have ours on a set date every 4 years. The PM can call an election at any time during his premiership and it is usually a 6 weeks (?) gap between the announcement and the election. Makes it much shorter, much cheaper, and, as far as I could see, a pretty sensible way of doing business.

 

[Yurt]

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.

you either have limits or you don't. to give so called grassroots unlimited campaign funds is to make campaign limits worthless....

imo....there definitely needs to be campaign limits....every election, from local to state to federal just gets bigger and bigger....obama = over a half billion dollars....a local sheriff election around here is almost a million dollars....a judge up north of here...almost 3 million dollar campaign

enough is enough

 

[Foxfyre]

I could see allowing only those who can vote within a state being allowed to contribute to a candidate in their state. And that would include unions, corporations, PACs etc. who would also have to be actively operating within a state in order to be eligible to contribute.

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.

I can see much more effective and productive ways of naturally limiting campaign contributions and the corruption that can be inherent in those. Caps, however, are not the answer.

 

[uscitizen]

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.

you either have limits or you don't. to give so called grassroots unlimited campaign funds is to make campaign limits worthless....

imo....there definitely needs to be campaign limits....every election, from local to state to federal just gets bigger and bigger....obama = over a half billion dollars....a local sheriff election around here is almost a million dollars....a judge up north of here...almost 3 million dollar campaign

enough is enough

the grassroots campaining I am speaking of is true freedome of speech.
I do not view money as speech.

 

[The Rabbi]

I want to see more money spent. I want unlimited contributions from every source. And i want all of it on the web within 5 days for everyone to see.
Does anyone really think Obama got elected with $20 contributions from inner city ghetto dwellers?
No, more transparency, not more limits. Currently we elect the fundraiser in chief, not someone who might actually be good at governing. This gives a huge advantage to the independently wealthy. And I would think the Left wouldn't like that too much.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Sounds like a great plan! Hell while we're at it can we PLEASE put term limits on Senators.

Just as soon as YOU pass an Amendment to the US Constitution.

 

[jillian]

The British limit the amount that can be spent on political campaigns. The focus is on expenditure not contributions. For members of parliament, I think it works out to about 100,000 pounds or a $150,000 US. As a result, campaigns are much cheaper and shorter. Would you like to see similar restrictions placed on congressional candidates?

Campaign Finance: United Kingdom ? Law Library of Congress

can't limit contributions... at least not now that the rightwing corporatists on the ussc decided that corporations are 'people'.

 

[jillian]

now you want limitations,, cause come november you gonna get you ass kicked..

poor willow, you haven't a clue:

WASHINGTON — Democratic Party committees entered April with $22 million more to help their congressional candidates than Republicans had, a reversal of four years ago.

The Democratic National Committee and the party's Senate and House fundraising arms had $58 million to spend as of March 31, compared with $36 million for the corresponding Republican groups. In March 2006, before the last midterm election, the Republicans had $84 million in the bank and the Democrats had $65 million.

"The Democrats are in charge of both houses and will be until at least January," said Mark Heesen, president of the Arlington, Va.-based National Venture Capital Association, which gave 78 percent of its donations to the majority party. "They hold the committee chairmanships, which mean they hold the gavel and they're the ones who can bring up issues or squash issues."

Four years ago, the Republicans' fundraising advantage came largely from the national committee, which had $43 million in the bank compared with $10 million for its Democratic counterpart.

This time around, the Democratic National Committee had about $15 million in cash on hand, compared with $11 million for its GOP counterpart.

Democrats raise more money than Republicans, thanks in part to Wall Street
and yet steele wasted alllllll that right wing money on private jets, expensive rooms and lesbian bondage clubs.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The British limit the amount that can be spent on political campaigns. The focus is on expenditure not contributions. For members of parliament, I think it works out to about 100,000 pounds or a $150,000 US. As a result, campaigns are much cheaper and shorter. Would you like to see similar restrictions placed on congressional candidates?

Campaign Finance: United Kingdom ? Law Library of Congress

can't limit contributions... at least not now that the rightwing corporatists on the ussc decided that corporations are 'people'.

Do you whine when the 5-4 is in favor of the Liberals?

 

[The Rabbi]

now you want limitations,, cause come november you gonna get you ass kicked..

poor willow, you haven't a clue:

WASHINGTON — Democratic Party committees entered April with $22 million more to help their congressional candidates than Republicans had, a reversal of four years ago.

The Democratic National Committee and the party's Senate and House fundraising arms had $58 million to spend as of March 31, compared with $36 million for the corresponding Republican groups. In March 2006, before the last midterm election, the Republicans had $84 million in the bank and the Democrats had $65 million.

"The Democrats are in charge of both houses and will be until at least January," said Mark Heesen, president of the Arlington, Va.-based National Venture Capital Association, which gave 78 percent of its donations to the majority party. "They hold the committee chairmanships, which mean they hold the gavel and they're the ones who can bring up issues or squash issues."

Four years ago, the Republicans' fundraising advantage came largely from the national committee, which had $43 million in the bank compared with $10 million for its Democratic counterpart.

This time around, the Democratic National Committee had about $15 million in cash on hand, compared with $11 million for its GOP counterpart.

Democrats raise more money than Republicans, thanks in part to Wall Street
and yet steele wasted alllllll that right wing money on private jets, expensive rooms and lesbian bondage clubs.

No, dear. The GOP is the party of Wall St. The Democrats aren't. Or was that so last year?

Actually the Democrats remain: The Party of Fuck You.
And any doubts about how Americans feel about it will be dispelled come November.