The Republican's strategy is to put money into races for every Democratic seat possible so that Democrats will be forced to spend defensively and choose where to cut their losses. Already incumbents such as Representative Steve Driehaus and Kathy Dalhkemper have had financial support withdrawn so funds can be used elsewhere.
Now the GOP is putting money into races in Wisconsin, Ohio, and Tennessee that were once out of reach for Republicans. Republican strategists also hope to take victories in suburbs across the country that were typically Democratic.
Since we have mentioned spending limits in class, is this a situation that requires limits? Is it fair that money has such a huge roll in swaying elections? Is it constitutional to let the wealthy spend their money where they want, or is it unconstitutional that they can have a huge amount of power because of their money?
3 comments:
I think the Republicans can have an unfair advantage. Although much of the money is coming out of their own will and their own pockets, the Republicans seem like they're just trying to buy their elections. I do believe there should be limits, because elections should be won based on using lots of money to get ads out and stuff, but rather on how well candidates present themselves, their personalities, their policies, what they will do to benefit our country, etc. Votes should not be bought, but rather earned. There should be limitations on how much money should be spent, making the parties smarter in their spending and making the candidates work harder to persuade voters on their policies.
As unfair as this sounds, I actually believe that the funding the Republicans have received is fair. I am not 100% sure on this but don't the Democrats have an equal chance to raise as much money as the Republicans, so is it really fair to say that the Republicans have an unfair advantage? And can anyone really buy anyone else's votes? I think potential voters should be able to discern what a candidate's true intentions and opinions are and not be so easily spun by political ads.
Ideally, funding shouldn't determine the outcome of an election at all. It does to some extent, of course, but I would hope not enough to make this into a big deal.
For candidates who can't or don't want to raise as much, there's governmental funding (which comes with its limits). Beyond that, extra spending has diminishing returns. If politicians want to spend out of their own pockets, let them. Can overspending really overturn an advantage among a population that opposes your ideology?
Post a Comment