3 ms·
Your solution has a clear result: only the wealthiest would be able to run for office.
by strictnein 9y ago
Your solution has a clear result: only the wealthiest would be able to run for office.
- pitaj 9y agoYeah. It either would change nothing, or make it worse. Not to mention the first-amendment implications of all-out banning political donations from firms. When people can't assemble their money together, their right to assembly is being violated. If you control when and where people can donate their money, you're violating freedom of expression. That was the main argument behind the boogeyman Citizen's United decision.
- alacombe 9y agoGiven the money spent during campaigns, it's already the case. Only the wealthiest are able to run for office. You'll never see a Billy Boy Blow run for president while being a blue collar. That being said, it's important to highlight that most democrat elected in the past were lawyers, while republicans came from business background.
- josinalvo 9y agoVery well,then. Lets try to fix that: put a limit on the expenses a candidate can incur in his candidacy.
- torpfactory 9y agoI’d personally love to have publicly funded elections. And you’re right, my idea would work without also limiting the ability of wealthy individuals to spend their own money on campaigns. Maybe add the caveat that campaign organizations are the only ones who can spend money and that they are subject to the $100 per person limit as before.