Say a limit of $1,000 per donation. Once it reaches 1 million for Presidential candidates, $500,000 for both houses of congress candidates, they can accept no more. Level playing field. Now, creativity enters the picture. How to spend the funds in the most effective manner. Is there something wrong with this approach?
I could see it reaching tax code levels of complexity.
How do you define “campaign spending”? What if somebody purchases a bunch of television airtime on your behalf?
Or a local volunteer prints out their own “My Candidate 2014” yard signs of their own volition?
Or your rich, rock star buddy paints your name and face on his tour bus and lets you and your campaign staff drive around the country in it?
Basically, are you limiting it to only cash directly sent to a campaign? And how can you possibly stop people from donating their own time/services without involving cash? Who enforces it and what passes muster?
In theory, this attempts to level the playing field, but, even in the best case, it concentrates visibility in the hands of people who already have some name recognition.
A million dollars wouldn’t even cover a commercial on a national TV network and you’re essentially only allowing for a thousand donors. Is that what you were aiming for?
Having limits could have some interesting effects (like not annoying everyone out of their minds), but it seems like your limits are way to low. Even if you wanted to get rid of commercials and have the candidates just do speeches and conventions, they wouldn’t get very far on a million dollars.
Also, are you the third party people that aren’t technically affiliated with the candidates but you can donate to them and they promote them. It seems like all the overflow is just going to end up there.
Campaign expenditures by parties are limited to billboards and leaflets (afaik) in the UK. Other forms of advertising, such as television ads, receive public funding. The result is that far less is spent per candidate - but the UK’s head of government is not directly elected, nor does the UK have a constitution which explicitly limits the way government can curtail freedom of speech, nor does the UK have a judiciary with the same power as the Supreme Court to set a precedent like Citizens United. So the comparison may not be entirely valid.
A “purchase” is a donation, no?
Would it cover people putting up billboards with their own money supportting candidates but not consulting them?
No.
Tour bus, paint, gas have a limit of $1,000 per donor. Sure a candidate can choose to use the money (from donations) on a tour bus costing $500,000, then run out of gas midway through the campaign, if he chooses. The idea is let them be creative. Knock on doors, etc.
How about your rich rock star buddy paints your name and face on the side of his bus and he tours around in it? Are you going to limit his right to free speech?
When the bus, paint and gas exceed $1,000 the party is over. He determines his right to free speech. Cheaper bus, cheaper paint might go further. It is his decision on how to spend the grand. After that he can knock on doors, if he chooses.
So what your saying is that if I put a pin on my lapel that says “Vote for Johnston” that’s a $5 donation to Johnston since that’s what it cost me to make that pin. How is anyone ever supposed to keep track of that.
It would cost me money to go door to door. Again, how is that party supposed to keep track of that million dollar cap.
What I’d like to see is something that says that when the candidates take to the airwaves in commercials they’re forced to only bring up what they’ve done and what they’ll do and can’t speak of the other candidate. IOW, no mudslinging. I hate seeing a commercial and then thinking “hmmm, that told me, literally, nothing about this guy, it gave me no promises to hold him to, didn’t say what he would do for me or why he is right for the job, all it did is tell me why the other guy is wrong. I’m not voting for you because the other guy shouldn’t have the job”.
What the OP doesn’t explain is why less money is a good thing for any reason at all.
Why do you think going around knocking on doors is good, but a commercial or a billboard or an online video is not?
This proposal seems to be entirely, force everybody to campaign according to my taste but to hell with the taste or needs or desires of anybody else. Why do you think that would fly with anybody outside yourself?
Campaign financing is merely a symptom of the underlying problem. My congress-critter does not represent me, he is from the other party, so “I lose” and this district got squidged out over the mountains so that I can never “win” on this. We should somehow fix that issue, perhaps some sort of solution that obviates the need for spending limits could be arrived at.
Okay troops, what I am saying is the present system is pathetic. Billions are spent on the election. This is a good thing, there are jobs, food, maybe disposable income for printers, propaganda writers, button makers, staff, media, etc. The economy is rocking! But maybe, just maybe, some of the large donations from individuals and corporations might be given as an investment. And they expect a return for this investment. Then it is no longer government by the people, for the people. It is government for special interests.
The numbers I through out there are arbitrary. They were provided to stimulate some thought on this matter. And you people nitpick at them. Unfortunately, you just don’t get it. The present system is ludicrous.
And your proposal isn’t very well thought out at all, and causes more problems than it solves.
What you are proposing is “Free Speech-First Come, First Served”. I could easily derail my opponent’s campaign by having friends put up a bunch of billboards with his name and picture on them in places where they would entirely no good, like the middle of a cow pasture. Blam! His limit has been reached, and I can put my billboards where they will do the most good.
This is a common fallacy. Things are bad, so any change would be an improvement!
Wrong. Lots of changes would be far, far worse than what we have now.
And any change would require a constitutional amendment to take place, so you better think really carefully about what you propose.
Bingo! If you are not part of the solution…
And how would you appear when the fact finders expose this?
You’re part of the precipitate.
Yes, I lived through the 60s.
The same as people appear today when the fact checkers expose them.
You do know there are fact checkers, don’t you? That every statement made by every candidate is parsed by people in the press and from the other side? That mostly these make no difference whatsoever? Indeed, fact checkers are often openly sneered at?
So how does this change in your imaginary world?
(And people thought that the hippies were politically naive.)