American Thinker: Raising money is nobody’s favorite part of campaigns, but everyone knows it has to be done. In order for voters to have a choice on Election Day, candidates need to organize – and fund – competitive campaigns. The costs pile up quickly when you’re paying for transportation, lodging, meals, advertising, and perhaps even staff and office space.
If candidates don’t raise the money, someone else will take advantage. After all, no state can prevent a wealthy person from spending as much as he likes promoting candidates through super-PACs and media outlets, or self-funding as a candidate. Yet, while wealthy interests have a free hand, candidates and political parties are heavily restricted in most states.
A new report by the Institute for Free Speech grades the states on political giving freedom and offers the clearest picture to date of how states limit contributions to candidates, political parties, and political action committees. These limits make life difficult for upstart challengers and others who lack a pre-existing base of financial support. But exactly how cumbersome they are varies tremendously from state to state.
Consider a candidate for the Colorado General Assembly. Despite the fact that many of these candidates will have to campaign in the expensive Denver media market, they can accept no more than $200 per election from individuals. In addition, corporations and labor unions are prohibited from giving any money to candidates. Cross the border in neighboring Nebraska, and it’s a totally different story. The Cornhusker State has no contribution limits at all, allowing individuals, groups, businesses, and unions to donate as they please.
mexifornia D+. What a shocker.
Campaign finance laws are a mess. I seem to recall when they were first enacted that the idea was to prevent “rich people” from “buying” their way into office. Then they changed over the years. When Maria Cantwell first ran for the Senate, she use her own “resources” to finance her campaign. After she won the election, people were then able to help her pay off the loans Cantwell took out to fund her campaign. There were no limits as to how much people could contribute to pay off the loans as they were not officially campaign contributions.
Over the years campaign finance laws became more like “incumbent preservation laws.” Just look at the franking privilege that members of Congress have. All they have to do is make the mailer be nominally appropriate and they get to have the taxpayer pay for campaign literature.
if the msm actually did their job then no money would be needed.
all issues would be aired as news on the news shows in the form of interview questions and debates. no editorializing needed. let the facts speak for themselves.
as it is now most campaign commercials are lies or innuendos spread by the politician against their opposition and lately it’s spread by the msm in their opposition to the candidate they dislike.