Should unopposed officeholders be allowed to raise money?

[Indy Texas]

All the way up and down the ballot this fall, members from both parties will be appearing on the ballot completely alone, without a single candidate opposing them. Their reelection will have already been assured months before. Many more will be running effectively unopposed, with only third-party or independent opposition.

Should people in this position be allowed to ask for or receive campaign contributions?

After all, if there are no opponents, there is no campaign. And if there is no campaign, what reason is there to raise money apart from the trading of favors?

[IceSpear]

Well, isn't a lot of the money they raise from before it becomes certain that they will be unopposed?

[Miles]

I'm leaning against them raising money.

Though he hasn't been unopposed, I think Richard Shelby is a good example of the situation this can lead to. He hasn't run a competitive race in decades and has $18 million (!) sitting in his campaign account. 'Just seems bizarre to me.

[Antonio the Sixth]

No candidate should be allowed to raise money. Each candidate should be granted a fixed amount from the government, and spend nothing more.

That said, in the existing framework, I don't understand how that's a big deal. If some rich people want to waste their money, that's their problem.

[DINGO Joe]

The New Orleans newspaper, Times-Picayune, has done a great job of destroying the DA on the Northshore (Republican suburbia).  Even though he's been unopposed for eons he still holds fund raisers and raises gobs of cash, and who gets paid gobs of cash to put together the fund raising soirees?  His son.  Quite the racket.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Problem is, it would be quite possible for one to invent an "opponent" to qualify for fundraising.  Conversely, even if you close that loophole, you'd leave an officeholder vulnerable to a last minute entry by a self-funded zillionaire.

[Bozo the Clown]

Yes but there should be limits on how much anyone running for a federal office should be allowed to raise.

[muon2]

There are quite a few activities that are paid for by campaign funds even when there is no campaign. Even without a campaign there are political groups and events that expect to see the standard-bearer of the party. Some staff positions have to be paid for by a campaign if the represent the politician at a political event. Same thing for technology used for both political and legislative purposes. Some legislative conferences are paid for entirely with campaign funds when there is a concern that time might be used for electoral politics. It's better to avoid taxpayer funds in these cases.