Should private political financing be limited?

Campaign finance. It’s an issue that came up time and time again in the 2016 Presidential election. Both sides of the aisle believe different things about campaign finance, yet both stand to benefit from allowing more freedom for funders. Citizens United vs. FEC is one of the most famous Supreme Court cases that deals with campaign finance. This case ultimately decided that campaign finance cannot be heavily regulated since money is a form of speech and should be protected under the first amendment. Even after that decision we must ask, what is the most ethical way to deal with campaign finance that preserves our democracy and ensures the majority’s voice still comes through?

Those in favor of unlimited campaign finance believe that people have the right to spend as much money as they want in order to support politicians who share their views. For this side, money is speech and needs to stay protected by the first amendment.

Those against unlimited campaign finance believe it is detrimental to the system, not allowing an equal playing field for all those looking to be involved in politics. According to them, it is not moral to allow only a few, very wealthy people to fund multiple politicians, potentially allowing a single agenda to take control of one part of the government.

Should private political financing be unlimited?

Current Standings:
Yes: 61%
No: 39%
  • RACHAEL from New York

    Are there better things that the money for political campaigns could be spend on, like schools, underprivileged, disasters, etc. At the least part of the funds should go to something more effective to help people. Basically, all that is being paid for is the advertising to get in front of America, so a candidate will be voted into office. Well, I say, vote for the people of American and put those funds to good use!

    [read less]

    Are there better things that the money for political campaigns could be spend on, like schools, underprivileged, disasters, etc. At the least part of …

    [read more]
    0
  • J from Pennsylvania

    George Will, author and Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist for the Washington Post, explains in prager university video “CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM CORRUPTS”: “Campaign finance reform is what it pretends to combat: corruption.” He gives the example of Eugene McCarthy, a liberal democrat from Minnesota. McCarthy ran against Lyndon B. Johnson. He never got the nomination, but he convinced Johnson to not run for a second term. How did he do it? He raised 11 million thanks to 5 wealthy donors seed donation. In today’s money: 75 million dollars total was raised for Eugene McCarthy. All thanks to 5 donor’s seed donations. The Democrats were so angry they pushed for campaign finance reform limiting donors to 2,600 in TODAY’s money.

    Also, campaign Finance Reform is corrupt in that all of the restrictions were written by INCUMBENT POLITICIANS, or persons actively serving in government.

    Believe it or not, Campaign Finance Limitation is unconstitutional. The first amendment says that congress shall make no law against freedom of speech. We are speaking as to which candidate we wish to win with our tax dollars. You support that person and say, “I support him so much I am giving him what he needs to win.”

    There is too much money in politics, you might say. ALL money spent in the 2007-2008 election, from city council to POTUS, was 8.6 billion, the same amount that Americans spend per year on potato chips. And in the money spent in election, more always goes to the incumbent anyways.

    Prager University Source: https://www.prageru.com/courses/political-science/campaign-finance-reform-corrupts

    [read less]

    George Will, author and Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist for the Washington Post, explains in prager university video “CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM CORRUPT…

    [read more]
    0
  • Nathan from Oregon

    Yes because the money people have they can do what ever they want with it and how you spend it.

    0
  • Alexander from Michigan

    Because the Supreme Court decided that money is a form of speech then I must side with what they decided because I am a us citizen and I believe that the government will do what is right

    [read less]

    Because the Supreme Court decided that money is a form of speech then I must side with what they decided because I am a us citizen and I believe that …

    [read more]
    0
  • Peter from New York

    The first amendment should protect people’s right to use their money to say something. If someone wants to support someone they believe in, they should be allowed to.

    0
  • Brendan from New York

    There should be unlimited amounts of campaign funding, because restricting people’s ability to fund campaigns is a violation of the first amendment. People have the right to do what they want with their money, and so this shouldn’t be any different

    [read less]

    There should be unlimited amounts of campaign funding, because restricting people’s ability to fund campaigns is a violation of the first amendment. P…

    [read more]
    0
  • Clive from California

    I think that campaign finance shouldn’t be regulated because in capitalism you vote with your money and money is a form of voting, but it should be regulated to that the money can only be from United States citizens and no foreign party to protect the sovereignty of the American election.

    [read less]

    I think that campaign finance shouldn’t be regulated because in capitalism you vote with your money and money is a form of voting, but it should be re…

    [read more]
    0
  • Chris from Alabama

    This issue deals with money in a way related and protected by the first amendment. Money for campaigns should not have a limit; that could potentially greatly lower votes for politicians. It is up to citizens to decide how they want to spend money and aid campaigns.

    [read less]

    This issue deals with money in a way related and protected by the first amendment. Money for campaigns should not have a limit; that could potentially…

    [read more]
    0
  • Brady from California

    The money is yours to use. It is unfair, but if you don’t have money, you have to get popular somehow else.

    0
  • Zackary from Iowa

    In this sense money is a freedom of speech and is protected by the first amendment. If people wish to support the candidate they wish to support, then they can go for it all the way.

    [read less]

    In this sense money is a freedom of speech and is protected by the first amendment. If people wish to support the candidate they wish to support, then…

    [read more]
    0
  • Sam from Colorado

    I think yes because it should be fair for everyone in the election

    0
  • Morgan from Colorado

    Private political finance should be limited. This way everyone has a fair chance of getting views and votes. This is what American is built on is the opportunity to running and being heard. Without political finance being limited, only the rich will be government officials.

    [read less]

    Private political finance should be limited. This way everyone has a fair chance of getting views and votes. This is what American is built on is th…

    [read more]
    0
  • Randall from Louisiana

    Yes political finances should be limited because if we be come a country without money we would not be a country at all we would be broke and have nothing like the oilfield and the agriculture would not exist that is why we should limit the political finances so we can save our country’s money.

    [read less]

    Yes political finances should be limited because if we be come a country without money we would not be a country at all we would be broke and have not…

    [read more]
    0
  • Jeremy from New Jersey

    There should not be a limit to the amount of financial aid given to presidential presidents. Before the election, it’s hard to show your support, and when you do, it feels like what you are doing feels like nothing. Helping finance the candidate that you like helps you feel important to the presidential election but it also helps the candidate who you are supporting.

    [read less]

    There should not be a limit to the amount of financial aid given to presidential presidents. Before the election, it’s hard to show your support, and …

    [read more]
    0
  • Jack from Connecticut

    I believe that there should be a limit on how much financing can be done for each politician. You should win a campaign based on your ideals and beliefs and not because of how much money you have.

    [read less]

    I believe that there should be a limit on how much financing can be done for each politician. You should win a campaign based on your ideals and belie…

    [read more]
    0
  • Mason from Idaho

    I believe a budget for the amount that you may use for your campaigning would help make a difference in voting.

    0
  • Casey from New York

    It’s unfair that some people get more money then other people

    0
    • Charles from New York

      If all people are equal, than they should all be treated equal, which means that they should all get an equal amount of money.

      0
  • Matthew from New Jersey

    Freedom of speach inherently protects the ability to donate to political campaigns. However there must be limitations on the amount that can be given, per candidate, per year. This allows more competitive primaries and general elections as an incumbent candidate would have a harder time gaining a massive financial advantage that they almost always have. The limits should vary from person, to company, to party bodies but should all be within reasonable amounts. Having campaign contribution limits will allow our nation to more accurately represent its people, not just those who have a bigger war chest by selling out to big donors.

    [read less]

    Freedom of speach inherently protects the ability to donate to political campaigns. However there must be limitations on the amount that can be given,…

    [read more]
    0
  • Keith from Massachusetts

    Yes because it is out taxes that they are using and if they are using it on stupid stuff that isn’t helping the country than its a waste of our money

    0
  • Benjamin from California

    Private financing should be limited so that way the wealthiest runerups don’t have the highest chance of winning. You shouldn’t win based off of wrath but intelligence and ideas.

    0
  • Colin from Washington

    Private political financing should be limited because it often makes the vote unfair for whoever has less funds. Of course America isn’t all about fairness but this makes you pull out way ahead making pointless sometimes.

    [read less]

    Private political financing should be limited because it often makes the vote unfair for whoever has less funds. Of course America isn’t all about fai…

    [read more]
    0
  • Ryan from New Jersey

    Rich people could “rule” government, and we’d be back to where we were before the USA.

    0
  • Christian from New Jersey

    It should be the states choice. They are the one that lives there.

    0
  • Rafael from Minnesota

    Yes because if that is how it goes then instead of many people able to participate instead just some wealthy people could control a small part of people in the government
    Rafael

    0
  • Trevor from Montana

    Yes we cant let them get more then others

    0
  • Matthew Swiderski from Mississippi

    The first amendment reigns supreme.

    0
  • Alex from Minnesota

    It levels the playing field so that there is no advantages or disadvantages

    0
  • Owen from Oregon

    People should know what people buy for political needs

    0
  • Wyatt from Mississippi

    Yes, as a free country, you should be able to spend your finances as you wish without restriction.

    0
  • Abram from Texas

    This nation has a capitalistic economy which means the consumer buys what the consumer wants. So if a person wanted to spend all of their money to support a candidate then they should be allowed. Just because a person spends a lot of money on one person doesn’t mean that the majority will not be heard. The only way the majority will not be heard is when the candidate wins more electoral votes than popular vote.

    [read less]

    This nation has a capitalistic economy which means the consumer buys what the consumer wants. So if a person wanted to spend all of their money to sup…

    [read more]
    0
  • Cooper from Oregon

    Of this was to happen then who would be paying for all of this

    0
  • Kevin from Texas

    No because money from third parties is essentially a bribe to those involved in politics. Political candidates will be pressed to cater to their largest donors in order to continue receiving campaign reelection funds.

    [read less]

    No because money from third parties is essentially a bribe to those involved in politics. Political candidates will be pressed to cater to their large…

    [read more]
    0
  • Jack from New York

    It smashes our freedom of speech by only letting the wealthy decide who should run and giving them a leg up. It also corrupts the politician because they now owe the wealthy person

    0
  • Ian from Connecticut

    I think that the financing should be limited because it is the possible president and he does not get money from the government until he is the president. So he needs to get the money for his/her campaign.

    [read less]

    I think that the financing should be limited because it is the possible president and he does not get money from the government until he is the presid…

    [read more]
    0
  • Ben from Utah

    The money belongs to the people that earn it so they can use it however they want. If you work for something and you are limited to how you use said thing, it might make you a little frustrated.

    [read less]

    The money belongs to the people that earn it so they can use it however they want. If you work for something and you are limited to how you use said t…

    [read more]
    0
  • Darien from Minnesota

    No, political financing should not be limited for private institutions. The government should not limit what private institutions can donate to.

    0
  • Jack from Massachusetts

    Because they would have an unfair advantage

    0
  • Derek from New Jersey

    I disagree because if one candidate has more money than the other, the election is unfair.

    0
  • Hudsyn from Missouri

    They can donate as much money as they want to.

    0
  • Brandoi from Utah

    I think that if they want to donate money to someone then they can. It is their choice, they can donate as much as they want.

    0
  • Osbourne from New York

    No because you shouldn’t be financing your campaign with your own money

    0
  • Patrick from Pennsylvania

    I believe if they want to donate an amount of money to someone they can. And they can choose how much to give

    0
    • Neil from New York

      Its there own money and people should spend it the way they want to

      0
    • Jacob from Iowa

      People should be free to do with there money what they want.

      Jacob Knepp

      0
  • Sean from New Jersey

    People who donate to political campgains should be able to donate as much as they want to because it is their own money.

    0
  • Riley from Montana

    If private financing is unlimited, everyone would finance privately

    0
  • Cameron from Minnesota

    It should be their choice

    0
  • Charlie from Oregon

    I believe that politicians should have an equal amount of money, and people could campaign for politicians that they want, with their own money.

    0
  • Andrew from New York

    I believe that citizens have the right to help a politician as much as they are willing. By restricting the amount of funds allowed to be put into a campaign, certain politicians wouldn’t have an ability to make their voice heard.

    [read less]

    I believe that citizens have the right to help a politician as much as they are willing. By restricting the amount of funds allowed to be put into a c…

    [read more]
    0