Should there be limits on political campaign contributions?

[greenforest32]

?

[Franzl]

Obviously.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Obviously.

[ZuWo]

Yes, but these limits should not be set too low. In principle, a political campaign should still be allowed to receive a large amount of money from individuals or companies.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

No. But there should be very strict spending limits.

[Free Palestine]

Ban corporate/union contributions, and limit personal contributions to a small amount.  Publicly fund campaigns, and stringently audit them.

[Frodo]

Yes, but I am flexible on how limited political contributions should be.  What is non-negotiable is complete public disclosure of those contributions. 

[memphis]

Absolutely. And not just on the official campaigns, but on the shadowy groups as well.

[© tweed]

yes, $0

[CatoMinor]

yes, $0

So you are saying you want to ban anyone who isn't rich from office?

[© tweed]

yes, $0

So you are saying you want to ban anyone who isn't rich from office?

publicly fund campaigns.  prohibit candidates from spending their own money

[freefair]

No, the right of a person, a collective to give money is the same as their right to put up a poster for them or speak in their favor, or change their name to "Ron Paul", in other words it is a form of self-expression.

[Redalgo]

I think campaigns should be publicly funded and that a public news provider or providers should cover all campaigns in a manner consistent with both the Fairness Doctrine and Equal Time rule, though the latter needs to include any time the candidates get air-time via news coverage. Their purpose should be centered on informing people about all of their potential options in the most objective, non-partisan fashion that is reasonably possible.

Folks should be able to contribute however much they want to parties and PACs... but neither are to be allowed to use the cash for projecting messages about the candidates or members of their respective campaigns widely to the general public. Private contributions to such groups need to be used for party mobilization efforts - e.g. discussing issues, party planks and their underlying rationales, criticizing those of rival parties, and organizing get-out-the-vote rallies.

So far as I am concerned, private media outlets should be able to allot air time to and discuss the campaigns however they want. Parties and PACs should be able to provide as much information about the campaign and candidates in private to people who request it as they want.

[Yelnoc]

Every campaign should be limited to $100 per person.  Only individuals should be able to donate to political campaigns.

Buddy Roemer 2012

[muon2]

No, the right of a person, a collective to give money is the same as their right to put up a poster for them or speak in their favor, or change their name to "Ron Paul", in other words it is a form of self-expression.

I think goes right to the point. How could one restrict an individual spending what they want to make a political statement? It's the core of why free speech is in the First Amendment - it's to ensure freedom of political speech.

I think the best remedy is to limit time. There's only so much one can do to get a message across in a limited time, even with unlimited money. Force a later start to the formal process with a compressed primary and general campaign.

[minionofmidas]

Article--

    `Section 1. A candidate for election for the office of Senator may not accept contributions, including funds and in-kind equivalents, from individuals who do not reside in the State the candidate seeks to represent.

    `Section 2. A candidate for election for the office of Representative in, or Delegate or Resident Commissioner to, the Congress may not accept contributions, including funds and in-kind equivalents, from individuals who do not reside in the Congressional district the candidate seeks to represent.

    `Section 3. Congress shall have power to implement and enforce this article by appropriate legislation.'.

The Dan Boren Amendment. Not going anywhere in the judiciary committee, needless to say.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

With a minor tweaking (since there is nothing in the constitution that mandates the single member House districts that section 2 assumes) I could accept the Boren amendment.  However, in general, I oppose limits.  If someone wants to spend $20 million to help elect someone else, that;s perfectly fine, so long as where that $20 million is coming from is quickly and transparently made known.