Thursday, November 8, 2012

Should There Be a Limit to Campaign Spending?

The Super PAC dangers!  "Super PACs are political organizations that can take unlimited sums from individuals, corporations and labor unions to spend in support of, or opposition to, federal candidates. To do so legally, a Super PAC must avoid certain forms of coordination with candidates." 
http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/09/opinion/hasen-super-pacs/index.html  Do you think that the election would have turned out differently if the candidates would have had limited funds?  Explain why.

8 comments:

  1. We believe that if there was a limit on campaign spending that the 3rd party candidates would have a better chance at being elected.As for the two major parties, they receive money from private corporations. The names of the 3rd parties do not get the same recognition or televised advertisement that the major parties do. There is a chance the election could have had been differently if each party had a budget because then each part has equal funds and must use their own techniques to persuade people to vote for them. In our current election, Romney had more money for his campaign then Obama. Obama was more persuasive and able to attract more groups of people.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with Gloria and Jesus because I believe that we elect our president based off their ability to present themselves and persuade us to believe in them. Although I do believe that less money in the campaigns would drastically change the elections, I strongly believe that its all in the candidates ability to persuade.

      Delete
  2. Leticia and Quynh / 5November 13, 2012 at 2:30 PM

    We think that as long as the money is being given by free will by corporations and individuals there should be no limit to how much they spend in their campaing. We think that elections could have turned out differently if there was a limit. Since media such as the TV plays an important part in the campaing paying for their messages to air is really pricy. But aside from that I think the internet had a lot to do on how the candidates were promoting themselves. If you take a look at how many followers Obama has on facebook compared to Mitt Romneys the difference is significant. Romeney has a lot less that Obama does. The funding wouldn't have any effect on the election outcome for the people vote for the best candidate, not the richest. Beside, with a huge amount of funding, what else can they do but print out flyers, shirts, and brochures. If he/she has good ideas, that'd be good, but if the ideas are terrible, it's no different than a bad joke.

    ReplyDelete
  3. In this case, I don't believe that the election would have turned out with a different result had Super PAC's had limited spending. I do think, however, that Super PAC's have a very large impact on the election. Most presidential candidates campaign very systematically. They don't want to be misconstrued as a bully becaause of negative ads, so they instead try to hhighlight their own successes in positive ads. Super PAC's, however, create primarily negative campaign ads for the candidate. Negative campaign ads are very persuasive. They show you images and use a lot of cerain language specifically to persuade you. Unfortunately, this persuasive, negative strategy often works. With this unlimited spending, presidential candidates who don't feel bad for spending millions of dollars on ads would keep spending to make more and more positive and negative ads. However, if there was a limit, there would be less negative ads and the money that they would have used could be put to better uses such as education.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I do think that the results would have been different if there was a limit on campaign spending. The reason being that this would force candidates to use their money wisely as they would be limited to an amount they can use. In all honesty, they should not limit spending due to the fact that having a spending limit will only lessen the competition. There should always be a sense of expectation and so there is no need for a spending limit. Given that the results were somewhat considered to be close, limiting the spending would make a difference. It would certainly benefit one side, but it wouldn't really create much of a balance since one side will end up spending more either way. In theory, creating a spending limit won't really do anything at all.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with Juan with the idea that there wouldn't be much of a dramatic change in votes do to the budgeting of each campaign. I say this because the presidents have different views and opinion and just pod casting their speeches than they wouldn't have to waste money on false advertisement. The people vote for what they believe should be done and not necessarily on what else they have to say.

      Delete
  5. We also agree with Jesus because if we limited party spending another third party group could win the election. This is leveling the playing field, but all this government spending gives TV stations money as well. With all this money the TV stations get from the parties, they use it for employing more people for the stations. So this money creates jobs as well. We think Obama going over 1 Billion dollars is crazy though. We should level the playing field, but not that much.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I think that the elections are very much money based.One of the main reasons why candidates win is not only for what they have to offer for our country but because they have the economical resources and foreign contacts. These great resources can help them by either buying posters and bumper stickers or votes. This is were bribery comes in place,where some of our candidates paying foreigners to buy votes? If the candidates had limited funds they wouldn't be promoted as much and the country may not know what they have to offer so to a certain extent private donations are good options.

    ReplyDelete