Ban on all campaign finance?
There is a lot of rhetoric surrounding how politicians in the US obtain money for their campaigns. I am wondering why it is necessary for politicians to have any money for their campaigns, small money, big money, their own money, etc etc. It seems that a possible solution is to host a few debates, and to allot each candidate e.g. a webpage on a government site on which they can expound their views on X,Y and Z.
Why can't we simply disallow campaigning altogether? What would be the challenges in implementing such a solution?
united-states campaigning campaign-finance
|
show 3 more comments
There is a lot of rhetoric surrounding how politicians in the US obtain money for their campaigns. I am wondering why it is necessary for politicians to have any money for their campaigns, small money, big money, their own money, etc etc. It seems that a possible solution is to host a few debates, and to allot each candidate e.g. a webpage on a government site on which they can expound their views on X,Y and Z.
Why can't we simply disallow campaigning altogether? What would be the challenges in implementing such a solution?
united-states campaigning campaign-finance
3
How would they travel to the debates? How would they have staff to help them prepare for those debates? How would they get the website designed?
– David Rice
8 hours ago
"How would they get the website designed" It's a government website. Many companies have a "meet the team" type page. Why would this not work for politicians? They can write their own blurb.
– Scott
8 hours ago
"How would they travel to the debates?" This is fair. However, how much money does it really take to get all of the candidates into one place for a few debates? This is actually probably cheaper than setting up hosting and maintaining the website on which we have the candidate blurbs.
– Scott
7 hours ago
The "meet the team" pages are all designed - even the bad ones. Source: I'm a web applications programmer. It sounds like you're mostly just saying you want public financing, which already exists.
– David Rice
7 hours ago
1
If people voted based on information, your ideas would be more understandable.
– David Rice
6 hours ago
|
show 3 more comments
There is a lot of rhetoric surrounding how politicians in the US obtain money for their campaigns. I am wondering why it is necessary for politicians to have any money for their campaigns, small money, big money, their own money, etc etc. It seems that a possible solution is to host a few debates, and to allot each candidate e.g. a webpage on a government site on which they can expound their views on X,Y and Z.
Why can't we simply disallow campaigning altogether? What would be the challenges in implementing such a solution?
united-states campaigning campaign-finance
There is a lot of rhetoric surrounding how politicians in the US obtain money for their campaigns. I am wondering why it is necessary for politicians to have any money for their campaigns, small money, big money, their own money, etc etc. It seems that a possible solution is to host a few debates, and to allot each candidate e.g. a webpage on a government site on which they can expound their views on X,Y and Z.
Why can't we simply disallow campaigning altogether? What would be the challenges in implementing such a solution?
united-states campaigning campaign-finance
united-states campaigning campaign-finance
edited 7 hours ago
Scott
asked 8 hours ago
![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/mZtIe.jpg?s=32&g=1)
![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/mZtIe.jpg?s=32&g=1)
ScottScott
20018
20018
3
How would they travel to the debates? How would they have staff to help them prepare for those debates? How would they get the website designed?
– David Rice
8 hours ago
"How would they get the website designed" It's a government website. Many companies have a "meet the team" type page. Why would this not work for politicians? They can write their own blurb.
– Scott
8 hours ago
"How would they travel to the debates?" This is fair. However, how much money does it really take to get all of the candidates into one place for a few debates? This is actually probably cheaper than setting up hosting and maintaining the website on which we have the candidate blurbs.
– Scott
7 hours ago
The "meet the team" pages are all designed - even the bad ones. Source: I'm a web applications programmer. It sounds like you're mostly just saying you want public financing, which already exists.
– David Rice
7 hours ago
1
If people voted based on information, your ideas would be more understandable.
– David Rice
6 hours ago
|
show 3 more comments
3
How would they travel to the debates? How would they have staff to help them prepare for those debates? How would they get the website designed?
– David Rice
8 hours ago
"How would they get the website designed" It's a government website. Many companies have a "meet the team" type page. Why would this not work for politicians? They can write their own blurb.
– Scott
8 hours ago
"How would they travel to the debates?" This is fair. However, how much money does it really take to get all of the candidates into one place for a few debates? This is actually probably cheaper than setting up hosting and maintaining the website on which we have the candidate blurbs.
– Scott
7 hours ago
The "meet the team" pages are all designed - even the bad ones. Source: I'm a web applications programmer. It sounds like you're mostly just saying you want public financing, which already exists.
– David Rice
7 hours ago
1
If people voted based on information, your ideas would be more understandable.
– David Rice
6 hours ago
3
3
How would they travel to the debates? How would they have staff to help them prepare for those debates? How would they get the website designed?
– David Rice
8 hours ago
How would they travel to the debates? How would they have staff to help them prepare for those debates? How would they get the website designed?
– David Rice
8 hours ago
"How would they get the website designed" It's a government website. Many companies have a "meet the team" type page. Why would this not work for politicians? They can write their own blurb.
– Scott
8 hours ago
"How would they get the website designed" It's a government website. Many companies have a "meet the team" type page. Why would this not work for politicians? They can write their own blurb.
– Scott
8 hours ago
"How would they travel to the debates?" This is fair. However, how much money does it really take to get all of the candidates into one place for a few debates? This is actually probably cheaper than setting up hosting and maintaining the website on which we have the candidate blurbs.
– Scott
7 hours ago
"How would they travel to the debates?" This is fair. However, how much money does it really take to get all of the candidates into one place for a few debates? This is actually probably cheaper than setting up hosting and maintaining the website on which we have the candidate blurbs.
– Scott
7 hours ago
The "meet the team" pages are all designed - even the bad ones. Source: I'm a web applications programmer. It sounds like you're mostly just saying you want public financing, which already exists.
– David Rice
7 hours ago
The "meet the team" pages are all designed - even the bad ones. Source: I'm a web applications programmer. It sounds like you're mostly just saying you want public financing, which already exists.
– David Rice
7 hours ago
1
1
If people voted based on information, your ideas would be more understandable.
– David Rice
6 hours ago
If people voted based on information, your ideas would be more understandable.
– David Rice
6 hours ago
|
show 3 more comments
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
While one can imagine an ideal world in which the political landscape is dominated by a "pull" paradigm (voters actively go out to find the information on the candidates), in the real world it's dominated by the "push" paradigm (voters passively receive information given to them). If you're asking why we can't have the first instead of the second, well, that's not what's happened. The fact that we don't already have that shows that it's just against human nature. One can call it laziness, or rational ignorance, but whatever you call it, that's just not how humans naturally behave. A government website where candidates can put up their platform simply can't compete with daily bombardment of messages regarding current events. Even if some voters visit the site (and most won't), they're not going to come back to it day after to day to see commentary on the campaign as it unfolds. It's the same reason why companies run ads, rather than just putting up a website telling people how great their product is, and then sitting back and waiting for people to visit.
If you're suggesting that we force campaigns to be run that way, consider: What is campaigning? It's going around telling people why they should vote for you. In other words, it's speech. Which is protected by the constitution. There are some that argue that it's money, not speech, that is being regulated, but when you prohibit people from spending money on speech, you're regulating speech. Campaigning can be categorized into four main types:
Self-financing: A candidate uses their own money to fund their campaign.
Independent expenditures: Non-candidates use money to fund a campaign that is separate from the candidate. The candidate does not have any access or influence over the funds.
Media Coverage: Candidates can get exposure by getting the media (and this includes not only "establishment" outlets such as TV news and newspapers, but also social media) to give them attention.
Contributions to candidates: People give money to a candidate, and the candidate decides how to spend it.
The Supreme Court has found that the first three types are constitutionally protected. The restrictions on the fourth are allowed, but eliminating contributions to candidates would just leave self-financing, independent expenditures, and the media as the only allowable campaigning methods. The first obviously favors wealthy candidates, the second means that campaigns are not accountable to the candidates (they are legally required to not be accountable), and the third allows large media corporations to dominate elections, as well as rewarding divisive behavior (the best way to get air time is to say something controversial). Banning contributions to candidates doesn't take money out of politics, it just gives more of an advantage to those who can pay for their own campaigns, have proxies act on their behalf, and/or manipulate the media.
add a comment |
By strict interpretations of this rule, you end up as an effective one-party state very quickly.
What counts as "campaigning" is the big question. Firstly, a lot of places have ballot signature requirements - you have to get N people to sign a piece of paper in order to be a candidate. Does that count as "campaigning"? If so, then suddenly you can't have any candidates!
Are people allowed to mention that they're running as a candidate? Are they allowed to wear party colours or other identification? Are they allowed to give interviews to the press?
Are third parties who somehow find out about the election allowed to campaign on behalf of candidates? Or have you just banned people talking about it at the office watercooler?
Are political parties allowed at all in your scenario? What about their internal democratic processes of choosing a leader or candidates?
Are turnout-improving processes (canvassing and "knocking up") allowed?
What about pre-existing celebrities?
Without all this lot, you end up with a strange world where the news reports that you're having an election, but you can't see or name any of the candidates, and this is the first anyone's heard of them, other than the incumbent. Perhaps someone presses an illegal flyer into your hand and runs away quickly.
(There are plenty of discussions to be had about campaigning and finance, but this is not something to ban altogether!)
Mostly, my question was about the money spent on campaigning, and not the speech itself. @Accumulation makes a solid point that the two are inseparable.
– Scott
7 hours ago
add a comment |
Considerations around freedom of speech would be the biggest obstacle. Obviously, the main consideration here is the Citizens United vs. FEC Supreme Court decision. Since this decision states that corporations, unions, and non-profit organizations may spend as much as they want on political advertisements, any attempt to restrict campaigning by a non-profit group would fall afoul of this immediately.
However, older and broader precedents also come into play. Restricting campaigning would require preventing the candidate from attending gatherings of their supporters, such as rallies, likely violating the free assembly provision of the First Amendment of the US Constitution. It would also prevent them from spending their own money on advertising, which was allowed before Citizens United, e.g. under Buckley. Hypothetically, such a prohibition could even prohibit a politician stating their political views on their own personal blog.
There are also some pragmatic issues with the particular implementation you're proposing that would make it difficult. The government would also need to provide money for travel and lodging at the debates, to replace the lost funding from campaigns.
add a comment |
Why can't we simply disallow campaigning altogether?
From the First Amendment of the US Constitution:
Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech...
New contributor
user25542 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "475"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f39368%2fban-on-all-campaign-finance%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
While one can imagine an ideal world in which the political landscape is dominated by a "pull" paradigm (voters actively go out to find the information on the candidates), in the real world it's dominated by the "push" paradigm (voters passively receive information given to them). If you're asking why we can't have the first instead of the second, well, that's not what's happened. The fact that we don't already have that shows that it's just against human nature. One can call it laziness, or rational ignorance, but whatever you call it, that's just not how humans naturally behave. A government website where candidates can put up their platform simply can't compete with daily bombardment of messages regarding current events. Even if some voters visit the site (and most won't), they're not going to come back to it day after to day to see commentary on the campaign as it unfolds. It's the same reason why companies run ads, rather than just putting up a website telling people how great their product is, and then sitting back and waiting for people to visit.
If you're suggesting that we force campaigns to be run that way, consider: What is campaigning? It's going around telling people why they should vote for you. In other words, it's speech. Which is protected by the constitution. There are some that argue that it's money, not speech, that is being regulated, but when you prohibit people from spending money on speech, you're regulating speech. Campaigning can be categorized into four main types:
Self-financing: A candidate uses their own money to fund their campaign.
Independent expenditures: Non-candidates use money to fund a campaign that is separate from the candidate. The candidate does not have any access or influence over the funds.
Media Coverage: Candidates can get exposure by getting the media (and this includes not only "establishment" outlets such as TV news and newspapers, but also social media) to give them attention.
Contributions to candidates: People give money to a candidate, and the candidate decides how to spend it.
The Supreme Court has found that the first three types are constitutionally protected. The restrictions on the fourth are allowed, but eliminating contributions to candidates would just leave self-financing, independent expenditures, and the media as the only allowable campaigning methods. The first obviously favors wealthy candidates, the second means that campaigns are not accountable to the candidates (they are legally required to not be accountable), and the third allows large media corporations to dominate elections, as well as rewarding divisive behavior (the best way to get air time is to say something controversial). Banning contributions to candidates doesn't take money out of politics, it just gives more of an advantage to those who can pay for their own campaigns, have proxies act on their behalf, and/or manipulate the media.
add a comment |
While one can imagine an ideal world in which the political landscape is dominated by a "pull" paradigm (voters actively go out to find the information on the candidates), in the real world it's dominated by the "push" paradigm (voters passively receive information given to them). If you're asking why we can't have the first instead of the second, well, that's not what's happened. The fact that we don't already have that shows that it's just against human nature. One can call it laziness, or rational ignorance, but whatever you call it, that's just not how humans naturally behave. A government website where candidates can put up their platform simply can't compete with daily bombardment of messages regarding current events. Even if some voters visit the site (and most won't), they're not going to come back to it day after to day to see commentary on the campaign as it unfolds. It's the same reason why companies run ads, rather than just putting up a website telling people how great their product is, and then sitting back and waiting for people to visit.
If you're suggesting that we force campaigns to be run that way, consider: What is campaigning? It's going around telling people why they should vote for you. In other words, it's speech. Which is protected by the constitution. There are some that argue that it's money, not speech, that is being regulated, but when you prohibit people from spending money on speech, you're regulating speech. Campaigning can be categorized into four main types:
Self-financing: A candidate uses their own money to fund their campaign.
Independent expenditures: Non-candidates use money to fund a campaign that is separate from the candidate. The candidate does not have any access or influence over the funds.
Media Coverage: Candidates can get exposure by getting the media (and this includes not only "establishment" outlets such as TV news and newspapers, but also social media) to give them attention.
Contributions to candidates: People give money to a candidate, and the candidate decides how to spend it.
The Supreme Court has found that the first three types are constitutionally protected. The restrictions on the fourth are allowed, but eliminating contributions to candidates would just leave self-financing, independent expenditures, and the media as the only allowable campaigning methods. The first obviously favors wealthy candidates, the second means that campaigns are not accountable to the candidates (they are legally required to not be accountable), and the third allows large media corporations to dominate elections, as well as rewarding divisive behavior (the best way to get air time is to say something controversial). Banning contributions to candidates doesn't take money out of politics, it just gives more of an advantage to those who can pay for their own campaigns, have proxies act on their behalf, and/or manipulate the media.
add a comment |
While one can imagine an ideal world in which the political landscape is dominated by a "pull" paradigm (voters actively go out to find the information on the candidates), in the real world it's dominated by the "push" paradigm (voters passively receive information given to them). If you're asking why we can't have the first instead of the second, well, that's not what's happened. The fact that we don't already have that shows that it's just against human nature. One can call it laziness, or rational ignorance, but whatever you call it, that's just not how humans naturally behave. A government website where candidates can put up their platform simply can't compete with daily bombardment of messages regarding current events. Even if some voters visit the site (and most won't), they're not going to come back to it day after to day to see commentary on the campaign as it unfolds. It's the same reason why companies run ads, rather than just putting up a website telling people how great their product is, and then sitting back and waiting for people to visit.
If you're suggesting that we force campaigns to be run that way, consider: What is campaigning? It's going around telling people why they should vote for you. In other words, it's speech. Which is protected by the constitution. There are some that argue that it's money, not speech, that is being regulated, but when you prohibit people from spending money on speech, you're regulating speech. Campaigning can be categorized into four main types:
Self-financing: A candidate uses their own money to fund their campaign.
Independent expenditures: Non-candidates use money to fund a campaign that is separate from the candidate. The candidate does not have any access or influence over the funds.
Media Coverage: Candidates can get exposure by getting the media (and this includes not only "establishment" outlets such as TV news and newspapers, but also social media) to give them attention.
Contributions to candidates: People give money to a candidate, and the candidate decides how to spend it.
The Supreme Court has found that the first three types are constitutionally protected. The restrictions on the fourth are allowed, but eliminating contributions to candidates would just leave self-financing, independent expenditures, and the media as the only allowable campaigning methods. The first obviously favors wealthy candidates, the second means that campaigns are not accountable to the candidates (they are legally required to not be accountable), and the third allows large media corporations to dominate elections, as well as rewarding divisive behavior (the best way to get air time is to say something controversial). Banning contributions to candidates doesn't take money out of politics, it just gives more of an advantage to those who can pay for their own campaigns, have proxies act on their behalf, and/or manipulate the media.
While one can imagine an ideal world in which the political landscape is dominated by a "pull" paradigm (voters actively go out to find the information on the candidates), in the real world it's dominated by the "push" paradigm (voters passively receive information given to them). If you're asking why we can't have the first instead of the second, well, that's not what's happened. The fact that we don't already have that shows that it's just against human nature. One can call it laziness, or rational ignorance, but whatever you call it, that's just not how humans naturally behave. A government website where candidates can put up their platform simply can't compete with daily bombardment of messages regarding current events. Even if some voters visit the site (and most won't), they're not going to come back to it day after to day to see commentary on the campaign as it unfolds. It's the same reason why companies run ads, rather than just putting up a website telling people how great their product is, and then sitting back and waiting for people to visit.
If you're suggesting that we force campaigns to be run that way, consider: What is campaigning? It's going around telling people why they should vote for you. In other words, it's speech. Which is protected by the constitution. There are some that argue that it's money, not speech, that is being regulated, but when you prohibit people from spending money on speech, you're regulating speech. Campaigning can be categorized into four main types:
Self-financing: A candidate uses their own money to fund their campaign.
Independent expenditures: Non-candidates use money to fund a campaign that is separate from the candidate. The candidate does not have any access or influence over the funds.
Media Coverage: Candidates can get exposure by getting the media (and this includes not only "establishment" outlets such as TV news and newspapers, but also social media) to give them attention.
Contributions to candidates: People give money to a candidate, and the candidate decides how to spend it.
The Supreme Court has found that the first three types are constitutionally protected. The restrictions on the fourth are allowed, but eliminating contributions to candidates would just leave self-financing, independent expenditures, and the media as the only allowable campaigning methods. The first obviously favors wealthy candidates, the second means that campaigns are not accountable to the candidates (they are legally required to not be accountable), and the third allows large media corporations to dominate elections, as well as rewarding divisive behavior (the best way to get air time is to say something controversial). Banning contributions to candidates doesn't take money out of politics, it just gives more of an advantage to those who can pay for their own campaigns, have proxies act on their behalf, and/or manipulate the media.
answered 7 hours ago
AcccumulationAcccumulation
1,190312
1,190312
add a comment |
add a comment |
By strict interpretations of this rule, you end up as an effective one-party state very quickly.
What counts as "campaigning" is the big question. Firstly, a lot of places have ballot signature requirements - you have to get N people to sign a piece of paper in order to be a candidate. Does that count as "campaigning"? If so, then suddenly you can't have any candidates!
Are people allowed to mention that they're running as a candidate? Are they allowed to wear party colours or other identification? Are they allowed to give interviews to the press?
Are third parties who somehow find out about the election allowed to campaign on behalf of candidates? Or have you just banned people talking about it at the office watercooler?
Are political parties allowed at all in your scenario? What about their internal democratic processes of choosing a leader or candidates?
Are turnout-improving processes (canvassing and "knocking up") allowed?
What about pre-existing celebrities?
Without all this lot, you end up with a strange world where the news reports that you're having an election, but you can't see or name any of the candidates, and this is the first anyone's heard of them, other than the incumbent. Perhaps someone presses an illegal flyer into your hand and runs away quickly.
(There are plenty of discussions to be had about campaigning and finance, but this is not something to ban altogether!)
Mostly, my question was about the money spent on campaigning, and not the speech itself. @Accumulation makes a solid point that the two are inseparable.
– Scott
7 hours ago
add a comment |
By strict interpretations of this rule, you end up as an effective one-party state very quickly.
What counts as "campaigning" is the big question. Firstly, a lot of places have ballot signature requirements - you have to get N people to sign a piece of paper in order to be a candidate. Does that count as "campaigning"? If so, then suddenly you can't have any candidates!
Are people allowed to mention that they're running as a candidate? Are they allowed to wear party colours or other identification? Are they allowed to give interviews to the press?
Are third parties who somehow find out about the election allowed to campaign on behalf of candidates? Or have you just banned people talking about it at the office watercooler?
Are political parties allowed at all in your scenario? What about their internal democratic processes of choosing a leader or candidates?
Are turnout-improving processes (canvassing and "knocking up") allowed?
What about pre-existing celebrities?
Without all this lot, you end up with a strange world where the news reports that you're having an election, but you can't see or name any of the candidates, and this is the first anyone's heard of them, other than the incumbent. Perhaps someone presses an illegal flyer into your hand and runs away quickly.
(There are plenty of discussions to be had about campaigning and finance, but this is not something to ban altogether!)
Mostly, my question was about the money spent on campaigning, and not the speech itself. @Accumulation makes a solid point that the two are inseparable.
– Scott
7 hours ago
add a comment |
By strict interpretations of this rule, you end up as an effective one-party state very quickly.
What counts as "campaigning" is the big question. Firstly, a lot of places have ballot signature requirements - you have to get N people to sign a piece of paper in order to be a candidate. Does that count as "campaigning"? If so, then suddenly you can't have any candidates!
Are people allowed to mention that they're running as a candidate? Are they allowed to wear party colours or other identification? Are they allowed to give interviews to the press?
Are third parties who somehow find out about the election allowed to campaign on behalf of candidates? Or have you just banned people talking about it at the office watercooler?
Are political parties allowed at all in your scenario? What about their internal democratic processes of choosing a leader or candidates?
Are turnout-improving processes (canvassing and "knocking up") allowed?
What about pre-existing celebrities?
Without all this lot, you end up with a strange world where the news reports that you're having an election, but you can't see or name any of the candidates, and this is the first anyone's heard of them, other than the incumbent. Perhaps someone presses an illegal flyer into your hand and runs away quickly.
(There are plenty of discussions to be had about campaigning and finance, but this is not something to ban altogether!)
By strict interpretations of this rule, you end up as an effective one-party state very quickly.
What counts as "campaigning" is the big question. Firstly, a lot of places have ballot signature requirements - you have to get N people to sign a piece of paper in order to be a candidate. Does that count as "campaigning"? If so, then suddenly you can't have any candidates!
Are people allowed to mention that they're running as a candidate? Are they allowed to wear party colours or other identification? Are they allowed to give interviews to the press?
Are third parties who somehow find out about the election allowed to campaign on behalf of candidates? Or have you just banned people talking about it at the office watercooler?
Are political parties allowed at all in your scenario? What about their internal democratic processes of choosing a leader or candidates?
Are turnout-improving processes (canvassing and "knocking up") allowed?
What about pre-existing celebrities?
Without all this lot, you end up with a strange world where the news reports that you're having an election, but you can't see or name any of the candidates, and this is the first anyone's heard of them, other than the incumbent. Perhaps someone presses an illegal flyer into your hand and runs away quickly.
(There are plenty of discussions to be had about campaigning and finance, but this is not something to ban altogether!)
answered 7 hours ago
pjc50pjc50
5,2531226
5,2531226
Mostly, my question was about the money spent on campaigning, and not the speech itself. @Accumulation makes a solid point that the two are inseparable.
– Scott
7 hours ago
add a comment |
Mostly, my question was about the money spent on campaigning, and not the speech itself. @Accumulation makes a solid point that the two are inseparable.
– Scott
7 hours ago
Mostly, my question was about the money spent on campaigning, and not the speech itself. @Accumulation makes a solid point that the two are inseparable.
– Scott
7 hours ago
Mostly, my question was about the money spent on campaigning, and not the speech itself. @Accumulation makes a solid point that the two are inseparable.
– Scott
7 hours ago
add a comment |
Considerations around freedom of speech would be the biggest obstacle. Obviously, the main consideration here is the Citizens United vs. FEC Supreme Court decision. Since this decision states that corporations, unions, and non-profit organizations may spend as much as they want on political advertisements, any attempt to restrict campaigning by a non-profit group would fall afoul of this immediately.
However, older and broader precedents also come into play. Restricting campaigning would require preventing the candidate from attending gatherings of their supporters, such as rallies, likely violating the free assembly provision of the First Amendment of the US Constitution. It would also prevent them from spending their own money on advertising, which was allowed before Citizens United, e.g. under Buckley. Hypothetically, such a prohibition could even prohibit a politician stating their political views on their own personal blog.
There are also some pragmatic issues with the particular implementation you're proposing that would make it difficult. The government would also need to provide money for travel and lodging at the debates, to replace the lost funding from campaigns.
add a comment |
Considerations around freedom of speech would be the biggest obstacle. Obviously, the main consideration here is the Citizens United vs. FEC Supreme Court decision. Since this decision states that corporations, unions, and non-profit organizations may spend as much as they want on political advertisements, any attempt to restrict campaigning by a non-profit group would fall afoul of this immediately.
However, older and broader precedents also come into play. Restricting campaigning would require preventing the candidate from attending gatherings of their supporters, such as rallies, likely violating the free assembly provision of the First Amendment of the US Constitution. It would also prevent them from spending their own money on advertising, which was allowed before Citizens United, e.g. under Buckley. Hypothetically, such a prohibition could even prohibit a politician stating their political views on their own personal blog.
There are also some pragmatic issues with the particular implementation you're proposing that would make it difficult. The government would also need to provide money for travel and lodging at the debates, to replace the lost funding from campaigns.
add a comment |
Considerations around freedom of speech would be the biggest obstacle. Obviously, the main consideration here is the Citizens United vs. FEC Supreme Court decision. Since this decision states that corporations, unions, and non-profit organizations may spend as much as they want on political advertisements, any attempt to restrict campaigning by a non-profit group would fall afoul of this immediately.
However, older and broader precedents also come into play. Restricting campaigning would require preventing the candidate from attending gatherings of their supporters, such as rallies, likely violating the free assembly provision of the First Amendment of the US Constitution. It would also prevent them from spending their own money on advertising, which was allowed before Citizens United, e.g. under Buckley. Hypothetically, such a prohibition could even prohibit a politician stating their political views on their own personal blog.
There are also some pragmatic issues with the particular implementation you're proposing that would make it difficult. The government would also need to provide money for travel and lodging at the debates, to replace the lost funding from campaigns.
Considerations around freedom of speech would be the biggest obstacle. Obviously, the main consideration here is the Citizens United vs. FEC Supreme Court decision. Since this decision states that corporations, unions, and non-profit organizations may spend as much as they want on political advertisements, any attempt to restrict campaigning by a non-profit group would fall afoul of this immediately.
However, older and broader precedents also come into play. Restricting campaigning would require preventing the candidate from attending gatherings of their supporters, such as rallies, likely violating the free assembly provision of the First Amendment of the US Constitution. It would also prevent them from spending their own money on advertising, which was allowed before Citizens United, e.g. under Buckley. Hypothetically, such a prohibition could even prohibit a politician stating their political views on their own personal blog.
There are also some pragmatic issues with the particular implementation you're proposing that would make it difficult. The government would also need to provide money for travel and lodging at the debates, to replace the lost funding from campaigns.
edited 7 hours ago
answered 7 hours ago
![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Kjl2L.png?s=32&g=1)
![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Kjl2L.png?s=32&g=1)
Obie 2.0Obie 2.0
1,044313
1,044313
add a comment |
add a comment |
Why can't we simply disallow campaigning altogether?
From the First Amendment of the US Constitution:
Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech...
New contributor
user25542 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
Why can't we simply disallow campaigning altogether?
From the First Amendment of the US Constitution:
Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech...
New contributor
user25542 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
Why can't we simply disallow campaigning altogether?
From the First Amendment of the US Constitution:
Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech...
New contributor
user25542 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Why can't we simply disallow campaigning altogether?
From the First Amendment of the US Constitution:
Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech...
New contributor
user25542 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 1 hour ago
JJJ
4,58922144
4,58922144
New contributor
user25542 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered 2 hours ago
user25542user25542
211
211
New contributor
user25542 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
user25542 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
user25542 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Politics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f39368%2fban-on-all-campaign-finance%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
3
How would they travel to the debates? How would they have staff to help them prepare for those debates? How would they get the website designed?
– David Rice
8 hours ago
"How would they get the website designed" It's a government website. Many companies have a "meet the team" type page. Why would this not work for politicians? They can write their own blurb.
– Scott
8 hours ago
"How would they travel to the debates?" This is fair. However, how much money does it really take to get all of the candidates into one place for a few debates? This is actually probably cheaper than setting up hosting and maintaining the website on which we have the candidate blurbs.
– Scott
7 hours ago
The "meet the team" pages are all designed - even the bad ones. Source: I'm a web applications programmer. It sounds like you're mostly just saying you want public financing, which already exists.
– David Rice
7 hours ago
1
If people voted based on information, your ideas would be more understandable.
– David Rice
6 hours ago