| REVIEWER | RATING & REVIEW |
 | numbah16tdhaha (161)
11/05/2008 | I can think of better ways to spend 600 million dollars, for sure...
(1 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 1 agree) |
 | Chalky Studebaker (16)
11/04/2008 | I said it in another review but it turns out that $8 will have been spent on every vote. What a waste? Imagine what that money could do? God. Place some kind of cap...just proves elections are bought to some extent.
(1 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 2 agree) |
 | irishgit (155)
05/26/2008 | Several countries have implemented some form of campaign spending limits, and most have encountered immense beaurocratic and enforcement problems, most of which don't rear their head until well after the ballots are counted and the candidate is in office.
Dealing with third party lobbyists and supporters and special interest advertisers is a particularly tricky area, and almost impossible to enforce in any rational manner.
This is one of those ideas that sounds simple, but isn't and causes more problems than it solves.
(4 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | Donovan (141)
11/01/2006 | Would make a fairer playing field! I say make it illegal to put up political signs in yards and all over any bare piece of land available.
(2 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | Drummond (60)
02/27/2006 | In principle I agree, but most proposals probably violate the First Amendment.
(2 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | abichara (66)
11/07/2005 | I find it ironic that this touted as a progressive reform. While I believe that some of the people who promote campaign spending laws are well-intentioned, it actually ends up making it more difficult for outsiders to run for public office. Why? Because the soft money ban can be waived by candidates who have a large fund-raising base or who are very wealthy. So candidates who become beholden to public financing out of sheer need get tied behind the back when raising money against the same well-financed candidates that chose not to accept the campaign spending limits. Of course, candidate without the resources can opt for public funding, but with the caveat that they accept those same campaign fundraising limits. Campaign finance laws are always filled with such loopholes that destroy the very spirit of the law. What was originally designed to supposedly regulate corporate contributions only ends up encouraging it.
(3 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | Dwain (0)
11/04/2005 | This goes hand in hand with public funding of all election campaigns.
(0 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | GenghisTheHun (179)
10/18/2005 | Great idea. Let's hire a million new bureaucrats to enforce this inspired notion!
Maybe we can put the repository of the records below sea level in New Orleans.
(5 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | Redoedo (41)
09/24/2005 | Problematic. Despite spirited efforts to implement this strategy, this seems to be an inherently unenforceable concept. Regardless of the changes made to existing law, there seems to be a perpetual loophole that proliferates this activity. Whether we like it or not, this is a lost cause.
(0 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | VirileVagabond (38)
09/23/2005 | Placing limits on campaign spending is a bad idea. As most money is merely capitalized labor, what one is really doing by limiting spending is limiting how much one can work for a candidate. (This concept can be counterintuitive.) There is also serious First Amendment issues and considerations. Does one really want the government controlling which citizens and domestic entities can spend and how much on any issue or candidate, and does this control reconcile with the American philosophy of free and open discussion? The bottom line is that there are costs to having a political system with elections, and the risks associated with campaign spending are just some of them.
(7 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | 37102002 (2)
01/30/2005 | i dont see how you could without restricting someone's free speech rights. if you could, i would be more open to it.
(0 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | Mr.Political (21)
11/01/2004 | It sounds great in theory but, like Eschew has posted, you still have the problem with 527's and special intrest groups. A plus that seldom is thought about with not placing a limit is that a candidate can fundraise as much as he wants to which, in turn, means that a candidate will spend more time with people than with his campaign advisor. It's just a thought...
(4 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | Amy55Rose (0)
10/27/2004 | It shouldn't matter how much money a candidate has. You shouldn't need a bunch of parades and concerts and TV commercials bashing the opponent to get elected. Each candidate should be able to use the same amount of money to make his opinions and ideas heard. Enough said.
(2 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | EschewObfuscation (71)
07/23/2004 | Sorry, us cynical conservatives are not confident that our government is capable of making laws that cannot be circumvented, or that can reduce the influence that special interest groups wield over each election. If history has taught us anything it is that there is no air tight law. Here's the deal: special interest groups will continue to influence elections with their contributions, and PEOPLE will continue to vote for and elect their political leaders. To imply that special interest groups buy elections is not true. They may bombarb the voters with their propaganda but buying votes? That is what the 1st Amendment is all about (Congress shall make no law. . .) We've tinkered with it enough, without success. Accept the playing field as level if you have to operate under the same rules as your opponent.
(4 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | John McCain (1)
06/28/2004 | The problem is not enough money for GOOD candidates.
(1 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | Althea (0)
01/30/2004 | Money buys ads, ads influence the masses that do not care enough to look beyond their slick brainwashing. Whoever spends the most on ads and spin doctors wins. We should have an equal playing field. But, given that people will look for loopholes to funding, and find them, an easier change is to eliminate TV ads completely. Force people to READ about the issues, watch debates, and discuss the finer points with their fellow citizens. Campaign spending will not be as important if the money can't be spent on marketing, and it could force people to WAKE UP and really THINK about the issues.
(4 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | The Real Truth (1)
11/14/2003 | The only way to be fair is to make the playing surface even. That would include money. Let the candidate stand on the merits of his character, not the amount of advertising he can afford.
(4 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | ironlaw (1)
07/04/2003 | I'm ambivalent on this one. Limited spending kind of goes against the whole capitalism thing. Yeah, I know that the theory is that big money always wins. May be. But trying to make elections totally fair is like herding cats.
(2 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | BIGBABY (11)
05/26/2003 | Wake up people, understand that money rules everything. The smartest people are rich. Comnpletely un-American.
(1 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | RebelYell1861 (10)
05/23/2003 | What for? People are gonna vote for who they agree with anyway.
(1 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | Solenoid DH (20)
05/17/2003 | Liberal opinion-makers already totally dominate (a) the news media, (b) academia, and (c) the entertainment industry. The only thing that gets in their way is the free expression of people who go to the expense of buying airtime to place their ads. Placing limits on spending is an assault on that free speech. This is why the liberal Press is so enthusiastic about it. They don't want any fair competition. I suspect that John McCain knows this and is just pushing for it in order to get the news media on his side, and bolster his chances to get into the White House.
(7 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | President -X-D (7)
04/16/2003 | This is unnecessary. The real problem is getting the Constitution amended to explicitly state that all laws must be OBJECTIVE, and to repeal all laws which promote subjective policies. Congress shall make no law which infringes upon the individual rights of ANY citizen. There would be no reason for a special interest group to put a politician in their pocket if the laws could not be bent in the groups' favor (which is the difference between objective and SUBjective law).
(2 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
| rogue (0)
02/20/2003 | This is the only reform that really matters... and it will never happen.
(1 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | John290 (0)
02/10/2003 | If this finally goes through, the people of this country will be able to choose their leaders instead of some huge corporation with its own agenda. Campaign finance reform just might give politicians their souls back. Come on John McCain, I'm not giving up on you yet!
(5 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | ellajedlicka21 (6)
09/12/2001 | Dubya wouldn't have even won the primary if he wasn't as filthy rich and privliged as he is, getting all funding for his campaign.
(2 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
| emmez78 (0)
12/01/2000 | Hey if the candidate raises the money. It's theirs. Or should we all be Democrats and just let the working tax payers pay for it?
(1 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
| Karch (0)
11/19/2000 | Possibly the worst idea ever. We should REMOVE ALL personal limits, but require full and immediate disclosure of all contributions.
(0 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
| flai4749om (0)
11/11/2000 | People should not be able to buy an election. There should be set amount that an individual can spend on his/her campaign, and that's it.
(3 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | Wiggum (17)
11/08/2000 | This may be the biggest no-brainer in politics right now. I'm not even sure where to start listing the benefits... First of all, from a selfish point of view, it would reduce the number of inane ads we're bombarded with during elections. That alone is reason enough for campaign finance reform. Second, it would reduce the favors politicians owe to special interest groups. Third, it would improve the ability of third-party candidates to compete with Republicans and Democrats. Fourth, it would reduce the political advantages enjoyed by independently wealthy candidates. The list goes on and on...
(4 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
| Munson (8)
11/08/2000 | This is not something that the framers had in mind when they were talking about free speech. Campaign finance reform is an absolute necessity. Look at what happened in NJ. The new Democratic senator is a former Goldman Sachs managing partner who spent about $60 million of his own money on his campaign. That's ludicrous and I'm a Democrat.
(3 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
| alicat (3)
11/08/2000 | Politicians will find ways around the set limit of spending. I don't think that would really do much in terms of improving the election either. I don't like that besides the two parties, canidates don't have the money to campaign like Bush or Gore did but I don't think our country would vote for a third party yet regardless. I see it in the future but not yet. Placing limits will just give them one more rule that they have to find a way to break.
(3 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | magellan (178)
11/08/2000 | I completely agree. Just as the Yankees should not be able to buy the pennant every year, I don't think that the ability to raise campaign funds should be the deciding factor in determining a party's "A" candidate (see George W. Bush). Does anyone really believe that Bush was the strongest available Republican candidate? Of course he wasnt' - he was however the most electable - meaning he had the name, and the cash.
(4 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
| 1-32 OF 32 | View All |
