Why do spending limits for campaigns only apply to money raised?
Should the wealthy be allowed to buy an office, as they seem to have in NYC and other places?
And with Ross Perot as an example of excess, is there anything democratic about his method of pouring his own funds into a cause?
Should we just let Bill Gates swamp an election because he can?
False premise. Spending lots of money on a campaigne does not = buying an office. It does not guarantee success. Look at Forbes and his various bids for the PotUS.
Noting false about changing the odds. Do we need the rich to have that advantage? Look at the recall campaign in
California- only a rich man would attempt it without party backing.
Spending lots of money does not guarantee success, but having very little money to spend guarantees failure. We are a government of the rich, by the rich, for the rich–the best government that money can buy.
Right, two opponents being equal, the one with more personal money to spend will likely win every time.
RD, Dog, Whuck:
Have any of you ever voted for the less well funded candidate? If you have, then you’re real complaint is with your fellow electorate. It’s tough being a smart guy in a land of dummies.
I have voted for less well-funded candidates. The plain truth is that there are so many stupid people that elections are routinely bought.
Likewise, presume that legislators are corrupt until shown otherwise. Indiana has NO LIMIT AT ALL on money that can be spent entertaining state legislators and NOT LIMIT AT ALL on the non-cash gifts that can be given to state legislators.
Our laws are every bit as bad as that implies…
Does rich AUTOMATICALLY = inferior candidate?
Well, the idea of limitting contributions from others is to prevent a person or group from having undue influence over a candidate. I’m not sure I understand the concern about a candidate having an undue influence on himself.
What’t the compelling interest to the public here?
Campaign finance is pretty public, especially if the guy is rich and funding himself. I’m reminded of Simon in CA. Sure didn’t help him. Now everyone wants to recall Davis. Go figure.
I vote for the best candidate, the candidate that I agree with, the one that may or may not have the most money or may or may not be the “smartest”.
I`m just saying that the average voter gets more exposure to the candidate with the most money to spend on advertising. Whether that candidate is the best or not is a matter of opinion.
Vote for Steve Forbes! He’s too rich to steal!
This is a rather gross-overgeneralization, but I happen to think being rich often says something about a person. If I knew nothing else about them, I’d vote for a rich guy before someone on welfare.
And I think it’s actually commendable there are people willing to spend millions of their own money for just the chance of winning political office. Even if elected, they’re unlikely to get that money back. We should be glad there are people in our country willing to work for the public, even when there is really nothing in it for them.
But ultimately, I think the apathy of the voting public is the only reason money is a factor at all in U.S. politics. If people really cared so much who occupied all these offices, they’d be a lot more proactive about who they vote for.
The first amendment’s purpose is to stop government from limiting political speech. Limiting how much a candidate can spend is limiting how much he can get his message out. Saying you can’t spend money to buy commercials saying “The President is a jerk, vote for me” has the same effect as outlawing commercials saying “The president is a jerk, vote for me”.
Political history is replete with failed rich candidates. The OP mentioned Perot. There is also Forbes, Huffington, Simon, and Golisano, just in the past 10 years.
Does rich AUTOMATICALLY = superior candidate?
Balle_M: Does rich AUTOMATICALLY = inferior candidate?
Dogface: Does rich AUTOMATICALLY = superior candidate?
Nice debate, guys! 
Well, its either a rich candidate who may very well legislate for his friends, or a poor one who may very well legislate for his rich benefactors.
I am personally far more suspicious of a poor person who seeks office than a rich one. Look at the number of congressman who enter congress never having made more than the average in their working life who leave congress either millionaires or very close to it.
The fact of the matter is, as long as politicians of any level in this country have their current ability to micro-manage tax rates and give businesses ‘incentives’ etc, then politicians are going to be a valuable commodity. As long as we have a progressive tax system wherein a small percentage of the population is responsible for a large portion of the revenue, then that small percentage of the population is going to have an undue influence in proportion to their contribution.
your argument is an argument against freedom itself. You seem to be upset that people are voting for the people they want, rather than the ones that you think they ought to want. Typical liberal elite mentality.
“I say unto you, easier it is for a came to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven.” – Jesus Christ