Campaign spending should be limited
The 2008 presidential election has shown the citizens of the United States of America how much freedom campaign spending has. Months before the election; spending has exceeded the last 2000 election of six hundred million dollars. It's almost ridiculous how much money can be spent on campaign spending. One question that comes up when thinking of unlimited campaign spending is the existence of a democracy where only the wealthy can become leaders and decision makers. "The absence of campaign spending limits severely restricts access of minority and low income communities to the political process". With current averages on spending it almost impossible for this group to be heard. "Limits on campaign spending will both help insure effective representation and equal access to the political system". Ninety eight percent of incumbents running again are reelected according to lee Hamilton. In 1976 it was ruled by the Supreme Court that limits on spending would restrict the first amendment rights. Think about the contributions that accompanies special interest groups and other social programs make to elections, will that money influence how a leader will act.
Say coca-cola helps a local representative out with campaign contributions. Will the money spent on getting that person in office affect the decisions made? If you help the friend would you expect them to help you out as well? Of course! Well the same goes for campaign contributions. Some argue that limiting contributions will "democratize" the system, forcing candidates to rely on smaller funds by more contributors. Hundreds of documents (letters, e-mails etc) containing evidence of wealthy contributors that buy government influence.
Another reason to limit spending is that all the money could go to something much more important. If this money went to something like social security or international aid that our world would be a better place? I would love to see...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document