Login/Sign Up




We should limit the total allowable amount of campaign funding politicians can use.
Politics

Jory Ferrell
Sep 20, 2015
7 votes
4 debaters
1


+ Add Argument

5
We should limit the total allowable amount politicians are allowed to spend for a campaign.


Jory Ferrell
Sep 22, 2015
1 convinced
Rebuttal
FOLKS...PLEASE DO NOT VOTE WITHOUT LEAVING A ARGUMENT FOR YOUR POSITION. THE WHOLE IDEA OF THIS IS TO GENERATE DISCUSSION ON A SERIOUS ISSUE PLAGUING POLITICS: MONEY.

IT'S CRITICAL THAT YOU VOICE REASONS, RATHER THAN LEAVING A HIT-AND-RUN VOTE... :

NOTE: THIS IS ALL CAPS BECAUSE IT'S A NOTE ABOUT THE DISCUSSION "RULES", NOT AN ARGUMENT FOR/AGAINST THE TOPIC.

 
Jory Ferrell
Sep 20, 2015
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Politicians are currently allowed to raise enormous amounts of money for their campaigns.

I am not suggesting that we limit CONTRIBUTIONS to the candidates.
I am suggesting that we, instead, limit the actual amount SPENT by the candidates campaign itself. By limiting ALL candidates with a total-campaign-expenditure-limit, we would help level the playing field for all, and prevent money from whitewashing candidates who may, money aside, have excellent policies and approaches.

This would not be affecting free speech, but rather protecting it, by preventing politicians from buying the media themselves. Or receiving "contributions" disguised as "political campaign assistance", from corporations, individuals with special interests, and the various industrial complexes, especially those of the oil and military variety.

 
Ridoo Sankhla
Oct 25, 2015
0 convinced
Rebuttal
It is only sensible to limit the expenditure during campaigning because some parties may buy expensive things to flatter people whereas , the party that is better may loose simply because they weren't able to flatter the people, although their promises may be true.

 
Joseph Mailkoff
Nov 20, 2015
0 convinced
Rebuttal
I think we should limit the amount for a few reasons. It puts every campaigner in the same realm of public awareness. Example - if one raises 50 mil but the other a half of a billion obviously the message of the half a billion dollars is going to get to more people, creating an unfair advantage due to the costs of media advertising etc. It also limits the amount of influence any lobbyists can financially have on the campaign.
Since Republicans want to limit spending they can get a head start on their potential term by practicing this exercise. Democrats would have to find a way to solve problems without throwing a ton of money at the issue.
Mostly, a limit would help to ensure that money didn't buy the election.


 
+ Add Argument

2
We should NOT limit the total allowable amount politicians are allowed to spend for a campaign.


Mike Hatcher
Sep 30, 2015
0 convinced
Rebuttal
The amount of money raised and the money itself is not the problem. What is the real problem is the lack of transparency in the funding.

When it comes to someone who will lead our country we have to see that they have strong support in society. When it comes to getting funds from supports this limits people who have no real influence in society. For example, we can look at someone running for office like the current person "Deez Nuts" this is a ridiculous candidate and if he has no funding his campaign will not go far and we can avoid a disaster like this. Pretty much having money from supports or being rich yourself allows you to show society that you have power and influence in the country and that you can make change happen.

However when we can see who is funding them we can have a good interpretation of their intentions and who they support. For example, if a candidate is highly funded by an oil company, it would be fair to assume that they would do what is in the interest of that company, as for they would be in that companies debt sort of speak.

I have ran out of time, but i would love to get this debate on its way, so let's do this!

 
Mike Hatcher
Sep 30, 2015
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: Jory Ferrell Show

First off limiting the amount is the same as limiting the contributions, for if you dont allow people to contribute after the limit has been reached, the restriction will apply to the contributions and lessen the amount, which will lead to harms. And that harm is exactly what you are advocating, which is leveling the playing field for all. There are plenty of people who want to run for president that are self righteous and there are people that have good intentions as well, but it is about the influence that they have in society and the power that they have. If they are not highly supported financially, this shows a weakness and lack of power. The main weakness is that they simply want to become president to make more money since they dont have much to begin with, that is why a highly rich or well supported president would be a better choice, for their concerns for money are not as strong for they already have enough and the temptations for more are not as strong as people that are not financially well off.

And if we level the playing field we will be overwhelmed with these types of people and it will make the election process extremely crowded and counter productive. Our president should be the person that is the most support and most accepted, socially and financially, no leveling of the playing field is required, it will just result in a less productive and potentially harmful system.

As for preventing the politicians from buying the media this can be better protected in my model of transparency, we can see where they are spending their fundings and who they are getting them from, this can give society a better informed decision about who they are electing, for analogy, if I were to have to choose between two girls, both that I really like, but yet I'm unsure about their intentions, if I give them a large amount of money I can make a better judgement based on their reactions and future actions. For example if one refuses and says she doesnt need money to love me compared to the other girl that says "This is it? I want more!~" and then seeing the one girl spend all that money on herself and waste it compared to the first girl saving the money or using it wisely, etc. We can tell a lot about a person based on their actions with money...Transparency is needed, not a limit

 


Use these tags to find similiar debates

britain death government politics uk 2008 2009 9/11 abortion Afghanistan america Arizona AU bad Baha BBC bias Biden boycott Britain bush canada capitalism Censorship cheney children China Christianity church cia Clinton Cold War commonwealth communism Communist congress conservative conservatives conspiracy Constitution Corruption country crime death debate defeat Democracy democrat Democrats detention discrimination drugs economics economy education election elections Ethics EU Europe Euthanasia evil Fascism feminism Fight France Frankie freedom Freedom of speech freedoms french gay Gaza george bush Georgia global global warming goverment government Great Britain Guantanamo Bay guns Health Health Care Healthcare Hillary hillary clinton History Hitler homosexual human rights illegal illegal immigration immigration india iran Iranian presidential election iraq islam Israel japan Jewish juggernaut justice Karl law laws legal legislation liberal lies marijuana marriage mccain media Medicine mexico middle east military monarchy money moral morals Mugabe Muslim Muslims news North Korea nuclear nukes Obama objective Oil opression Osama pakistan Palestine Palin Panda paradox parliament peace petition philosophy policy politicians Politics polygamy power president Prime Minister prisoners protest Public Affairs punishment queen race racism religion republican Republicans revolution right rights Rove russia Saddam Sarkozy Security sex socialism Society South Korea sovereignty Supreme court tax taxes terror terrorism terrorist terrorists Tibet torture Troop U.S. uk un united nations united states us usa vancam vote Votes voting war washington weapons wmd women world wrong