I think we should amend the Constitution so that candidates get a fixed amount from the government for a campaign budget, and that's the only money they can use. Judicious use of said funds will help to prove the candidate has the ability to be smart with our tax money once elected. The one problem I can't resolve in my mind is how many candidates can be funded and how do we choose who we fund or who we don't. There needs to be a limit or every kook would come out of the woodwork asking for campaign funds. On the other hand, I don't want to limit funding to just the Democrats and the Republicans. One of the problems with our current system of financing is that those are the only two voices that most of us get to hear because those two parties have a tight lock on the donors. We need to make room for fresh ideas.
Yes there should be a limit. It should be set according to how many people are represented by the office being voted on.There should be open debates for all parties to speak so the voters can be aware of more issues that affect them.
Else the people with the most money will buy the political process. I believe the last time I looked, though it's getting rarer and rarer, that the U.S. government is "of the people, by the people, and for the people" and no where in there did I see the word "rich".
Absolutely. There should either be a set amount for each candidate that comes from public funds, or stricter limits on contributions to candidates, parties, and outside spending by PACs and other such organizations. As the answer to this question shows, and as general public polls show, most US citizens favor greater limits. Unfortunately, the trend in legislation and Court rulings has gone the other way.
The Supreme Court decision in Citizens United vs, the FEC opened up virtually unlimited spending by wealthy individuals, corporations, unions and other legal entities. The ruling reversed a century of precedents on the issue.
That voters have not forced their representatives to examine all legal options to counter the ruling, including a constitutional amendment, is a tragedy and an indictment on the both the voters and their representatives.