a) The first proposal is to eliminate the political contributions earmarked for party-building expenses at the grass-rootslevel or for generic party advertising. Though after the McCain-Feingold Act in 2002 was passed, was finally when soft money contribution were subject be limited to a certain amount instead of unlimited. In favor of the proposal, soft money is unfair because if a candidate comes from a wealthy background, or has individuals with deep pockets, their campaign would receive more money than another candidate's. On the contrary, soft money does not go straight to the candidate, it goes directly to the campaign which does make it fair because the candidate needs the campaign to run in the election.
b) The second proposal is to limit independent expeditures on the campaign trail. Independent expenditures are when a candidate can spend as much money as they want on their own campaign with no limits. The advantage to limiting this helps level the playing ground so that the fight is fair, and a wealthy person gets more help because they used more money on their campaign. On the contrary, limiting how much money a candidate can spend on their own campaign, is like limiting free speech. So, there are two sides to this fight and neither one is wrong, they both just have separate advantages and disadvantages.
No comments:
Post a Comment