Ban on all campaign finance?Is Hilary Clinton on the hook for the 30m$ debt of her campaign?Is Bernie Sanders allowed to finance a trip to Vatican from campaign funds?What if campaign money was used to fund government programs?campaign contributions by sourceIs it typical for someone to be arrested over $20k violation of campaign finance laws?Is Fox News correct that Mueller shouldn't be going after a campaign finance violation?Is there any recent US campaign that contradicts “all politics is local” conjecture?Why don't the Democrats make a deal to give Trump his border wall in exchange for campaign finance reform?Allocation of government revenue for campaign spendingWhat did Bernie Sanders do with all the cash from his 2016 campaign?

Counter-example to the existence of left Bousfield localization of combinatorial model category

"One can do his homework in the library"

Word for a person who has no opinion about whether god exists

This equation is outside the page, how to modify it

Can the druid cantrip Thorn Whip really defeat a water weird this easily?

My story is written in English, but is set in my home country. What language should I use for the dialogue?

Touchscreen-controlled dentist office snowman collector game

Are there situations where a child is permitted to refer to their parent by their first name?

Potentiometer like component

Does Linux have system calls to access all the features of the file systems it supports?

What is the blue range indicating on this manifold pressure gauge?

Ban on all campaign finance?

When is a batch class instantiated when you schedule it?

Coworker uses her breast-pump everywhere in the office

What is the dot in “1.2.4."

Should we release the security issues we found in our product as CVE or we can just update those on weekly release notes?

Do f-stop and exposure time perfectly cancel?

What Happens when Passenger Refuses to Fly Boeing 737 Max?

What wound would be of little consequence to a biped but terrible for a quadruped?

Unreachable code, but reachable with exception

How do anti-virus programs start at Windows boot?

What does it mean when multiple 々 marks follow a 、?

How can I discourage/prevent PCs from using door choke-points?

Is a lawful good "antagonist" effective?



Ban on all campaign finance?


Is Hilary Clinton on the hook for the 30m$ debt of her campaign?Is Bernie Sanders allowed to finance a trip to Vatican from campaign funds?What if campaign money was used to fund government programs?campaign contributions by sourceIs it typical for someone to be arrested over $20k violation of campaign finance laws?Is Fox News correct that Mueller shouldn't be going after a campaign finance violation?Is there any recent US campaign that contradicts “all politics is local” conjecture?Why don't the Democrats make a deal to give Trump his border wall in exchange for campaign finance reform?Allocation of government revenue for campaign spendingWhat did Bernie Sanders do with all the cash from his 2016 campaign?













2















There is a lot of rhetoric surrounding how politicians in the US obtain money for their campaigns. I am wondering why it is necessary for politicians to have any money for their campaigns, small money, big money, their own money, etc etc. It seems that a possible solution is to host a few debates, and to allot each candidate e.g. a webpage on a government site on which they can expound their views on X,Y and Z.



Why can't we simply disallow campaigning altogether? What would be the challenges in implementing such a solution?










share|improve this question



















  • 3





    How would they travel to the debates? How would they have staff to help them prepare for those debates? How would they get the website designed?

    – David Rice
    9 hours ago











  • "How would they get the website designed" It's a government website. Many companies have a "meet the team" type page. Why would this not work for politicians? They can write their own blurb.

    – Scott
    9 hours ago











  • "How would they travel to the debates?" This is fair. However, how much money does it really take to get all of the candidates into one place for a few debates? This is actually probably cheaper than setting up hosting and maintaining the website on which we have the candidate blurbs.

    – Scott
    9 hours ago






  • 1





    The "meet the team" pages are all designed - even the bad ones. Source: I'm a web applications programmer. It sounds like you're mostly just saying you want public financing, which already exists.

    – David Rice
    8 hours ago






  • 2





    If people voted based on information, your ideas would be more understandable.

    – David Rice
    7 hours ago















2















There is a lot of rhetoric surrounding how politicians in the US obtain money for their campaigns. I am wondering why it is necessary for politicians to have any money for their campaigns, small money, big money, their own money, etc etc. It seems that a possible solution is to host a few debates, and to allot each candidate e.g. a webpage on a government site on which they can expound their views on X,Y and Z.



Why can't we simply disallow campaigning altogether? What would be the challenges in implementing such a solution?










share|improve this question



















  • 3





    How would they travel to the debates? How would they have staff to help them prepare for those debates? How would they get the website designed?

    – David Rice
    9 hours ago











  • "How would they get the website designed" It's a government website. Many companies have a "meet the team" type page. Why would this not work for politicians? They can write their own blurb.

    – Scott
    9 hours ago











  • "How would they travel to the debates?" This is fair. However, how much money does it really take to get all of the candidates into one place for a few debates? This is actually probably cheaper than setting up hosting and maintaining the website on which we have the candidate blurbs.

    – Scott
    9 hours ago






  • 1





    The "meet the team" pages are all designed - even the bad ones. Source: I'm a web applications programmer. It sounds like you're mostly just saying you want public financing, which already exists.

    – David Rice
    8 hours ago






  • 2





    If people voted based on information, your ideas would be more understandable.

    – David Rice
    7 hours ago













2












2








2








There is a lot of rhetoric surrounding how politicians in the US obtain money for their campaigns. I am wondering why it is necessary for politicians to have any money for their campaigns, small money, big money, their own money, etc etc. It seems that a possible solution is to host a few debates, and to allot each candidate e.g. a webpage on a government site on which they can expound their views on X,Y and Z.



Why can't we simply disallow campaigning altogether? What would be the challenges in implementing such a solution?










share|improve this question
















There is a lot of rhetoric surrounding how politicians in the US obtain money for their campaigns. I am wondering why it is necessary for politicians to have any money for their campaigns, small money, big money, their own money, etc etc. It seems that a possible solution is to host a few debates, and to allot each candidate e.g. a webpage on a government site on which they can expound their views on X,Y and Z.



Why can't we simply disallow campaigning altogether? What would be the challenges in implementing such a solution?







united-states campaigning campaign-finance






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 8 hours ago







Scott

















asked 9 hours ago









ScottScott

20518




20518







  • 3





    How would they travel to the debates? How would they have staff to help them prepare for those debates? How would they get the website designed?

    – David Rice
    9 hours ago











  • "How would they get the website designed" It's a government website. Many companies have a "meet the team" type page. Why would this not work for politicians? They can write their own blurb.

    – Scott
    9 hours ago











  • "How would they travel to the debates?" This is fair. However, how much money does it really take to get all of the candidates into one place for a few debates? This is actually probably cheaper than setting up hosting and maintaining the website on which we have the candidate blurbs.

    – Scott
    9 hours ago






  • 1





    The "meet the team" pages are all designed - even the bad ones. Source: I'm a web applications programmer. It sounds like you're mostly just saying you want public financing, which already exists.

    – David Rice
    8 hours ago






  • 2





    If people voted based on information, your ideas would be more understandable.

    – David Rice
    7 hours ago












  • 3





    How would they travel to the debates? How would they have staff to help them prepare for those debates? How would they get the website designed?

    – David Rice
    9 hours ago











  • "How would they get the website designed" It's a government website. Many companies have a "meet the team" type page. Why would this not work for politicians? They can write their own blurb.

    – Scott
    9 hours ago











  • "How would they travel to the debates?" This is fair. However, how much money does it really take to get all of the candidates into one place for a few debates? This is actually probably cheaper than setting up hosting and maintaining the website on which we have the candidate blurbs.

    – Scott
    9 hours ago






  • 1





    The "meet the team" pages are all designed - even the bad ones. Source: I'm a web applications programmer. It sounds like you're mostly just saying you want public financing, which already exists.

    – David Rice
    8 hours ago






  • 2





    If people voted based on information, your ideas would be more understandable.

    – David Rice
    7 hours ago







3




3





How would they travel to the debates? How would they have staff to help them prepare for those debates? How would they get the website designed?

– David Rice
9 hours ago





How would they travel to the debates? How would they have staff to help them prepare for those debates? How would they get the website designed?

– David Rice
9 hours ago













"How would they get the website designed" It's a government website. Many companies have a "meet the team" type page. Why would this not work for politicians? They can write their own blurb.

– Scott
9 hours ago





"How would they get the website designed" It's a government website. Many companies have a "meet the team" type page. Why would this not work for politicians? They can write their own blurb.

– Scott
9 hours ago













"How would they travel to the debates?" This is fair. However, how much money does it really take to get all of the candidates into one place for a few debates? This is actually probably cheaper than setting up hosting and maintaining the website on which we have the candidate blurbs.

– Scott
9 hours ago





"How would they travel to the debates?" This is fair. However, how much money does it really take to get all of the candidates into one place for a few debates? This is actually probably cheaper than setting up hosting and maintaining the website on which we have the candidate blurbs.

– Scott
9 hours ago




1




1





The "meet the team" pages are all designed - even the bad ones. Source: I'm a web applications programmer. It sounds like you're mostly just saying you want public financing, which already exists.

– David Rice
8 hours ago





The "meet the team" pages are all designed - even the bad ones. Source: I'm a web applications programmer. It sounds like you're mostly just saying you want public financing, which already exists.

– David Rice
8 hours ago




2




2





If people voted based on information, your ideas would be more understandable.

– David Rice
7 hours ago





If people voted based on information, your ideas would be more understandable.

– David Rice
7 hours ago










4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes


















10














While one can imagine an ideal world in which the political landscape is dominated by a "pull" paradigm (voters actively go out to find the information on the candidates), in the real world it's dominated by the "push" paradigm (voters passively receive information given to them). If you're asking why we can't have the first instead of the second, well, that's not what's happened. The fact that we don't already have that shows that it's just against human nature. One can call it laziness, or rational ignorance, but whatever you call it, that's just not how humans naturally behave. A government website where candidates can put up their platform simply can't compete with daily bombardment of messages regarding current events. Even if some voters visit the site (and most won't), they're not going to come back to it day after to day to see commentary on the campaign as it unfolds. It's the same reason why companies run ads, rather than just putting up a website telling people how great their product is, and then sitting back and waiting for people to visit.



If you're suggesting that we force campaigns to be run that way, consider: What is campaigning? It's going around telling people why they should vote for you. In other words, it's speech. Which is protected by the constitution. There are some that argue that it's money, not speech, that is being regulated, but when you prohibit people from spending money on speech, you're regulating speech. Campaigning can be categorized into four main types:



  1. Self-financing: A candidate uses their own money to fund their campaign.


  2. Independent expenditures: Non-candidates use money to fund a campaign that is separate from the candidate. The candidate does not have any access or influence over the funds.


  3. Media Coverage: Candidates can get exposure by getting the media (and this includes not only "establishment" outlets such as TV news and newspapers, but also social media) to give them attention.


  4. Contributions to candidates: People give money to a candidate, and the candidate decides how to spend it.


The Supreme Court has found that the first three types are constitutionally protected. The restrictions on the fourth are allowed, but eliminating contributions to candidates would just leave self-financing, independent expenditures, and the media as the only allowable campaigning methods. The first obviously favors wealthy candidates, the second means that campaigns are not accountable to the candidates (they are legally required to not be accountable), and the third allows large media corporations to dominate elections, as well as rewarding divisive behavior (the best way to get air time is to say something controversial). Banning contributions to candidates doesn't take money out of politics, it just gives more of an advantage to those who can pay for their own campaigns, have proxies act on their behalf, and/or manipulate the media.






share|improve this answer






























    6














    By strict interpretations of this rule, you end up as an effective one-party state very quickly.



    What counts as "campaigning" is the big question. Firstly, a lot of places have ballot signature requirements - you have to get N people to sign a piece of paper in order to be a candidate. Does that count as "campaigning"? If so, then suddenly you can't have any candidates!



    Are people allowed to mention that they're running as a candidate? Are they allowed to wear party colours or other identification? Are they allowed to give interviews to the press?



    Are third parties who somehow find out about the election allowed to campaign on behalf of candidates? Or have you just banned people talking about it at the office watercooler?



    Are political parties allowed at all in your scenario? What about their internal democratic processes of choosing a leader or candidates?



    Are turnout-improving processes (canvassing and "knocking up") allowed?



    What about pre-existing celebrities?



    Without all this lot, you end up with a strange world where the news reports that you're having an election, but you can't see or name any of the candidates, and this is the first anyone's heard of them, other than the incumbent. Perhaps someone presses an illegal flyer into your hand and runs away quickly.



    (There are plenty of discussions to be had about campaigning and finance, but this is not something to ban altogether!)






    share|improve this answer























    • Mostly, my question was about the money spent on campaigning, and not the speech itself. @Accumulation makes a solid point that the two are inseparable.

      – Scott
      8 hours ago


















    3














    Considerations around freedom of speech would be the biggest obstacle. Obviously, the main consideration here is the Citizens United vs. FEC Supreme Court decision. Since this decision states that corporations, unions, and non-profit organizations may spend as much as they want on political advertisements, any attempt to restrict campaigning by a non-profit group would fall afoul of this immediately.



    However, older and broader precedents also come into play. Restricting campaigning would require preventing the candidate from attending gatherings of their supporters, such as rallies, likely violating the free assembly provision of the First Amendment of the US Constitution. It would also prevent them from spending their own money on advertising, which was allowed before Citizens United, e.g. under Buckley. Hypothetically, such a prohibition could even prohibit a politician stating their political views on their own personal blog.



    There are also some pragmatic issues with the particular implementation you're proposing that would make it difficult. The government would also need to provide money for travel and lodging at the debates, to replace the lost funding from campaigns.






    share|improve this answer
































      3















      Why can't we simply disallow campaigning altogether?




      From the First Amendment of the US Constitution:




      Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech...







      share|improve this answer










      New contributor




      user25542 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.



















        Your Answer








        StackExchange.ready(function()
        var channelOptions =
        tags: "".split(" "),
        id: "475"
        ;
        initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

        StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
        // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
        if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
        StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
        createEditor();
        );

        else
        createEditor();

        );

        function createEditor()
        StackExchange.prepareEditor(
        heartbeatType: 'answer',
        autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
        convertImagesToLinks: false,
        noModals: true,
        showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
        reputationToPostImages: null,
        bindNavPrevention: true,
        postfix: "",
        imageUploader:
        brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
        contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
        allowUrls: true
        ,
        noCode: true, onDemand: true,
        discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
        ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
        );



        );













        draft saved

        draft discarded


















        StackExchange.ready(
        function ()
        StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f39368%2fban-on-all-campaign-finance%23new-answer', 'question_page');

        );

        Post as a guest















        Required, but never shown

























        4 Answers
        4






        active

        oldest

        votes








        4 Answers
        4






        active

        oldest

        votes









        active

        oldest

        votes






        active

        oldest

        votes









        10














        While one can imagine an ideal world in which the political landscape is dominated by a "pull" paradigm (voters actively go out to find the information on the candidates), in the real world it's dominated by the "push" paradigm (voters passively receive information given to them). If you're asking why we can't have the first instead of the second, well, that's not what's happened. The fact that we don't already have that shows that it's just against human nature. One can call it laziness, or rational ignorance, but whatever you call it, that's just not how humans naturally behave. A government website where candidates can put up their platform simply can't compete with daily bombardment of messages regarding current events. Even if some voters visit the site (and most won't), they're not going to come back to it day after to day to see commentary on the campaign as it unfolds. It's the same reason why companies run ads, rather than just putting up a website telling people how great their product is, and then sitting back and waiting for people to visit.



        If you're suggesting that we force campaigns to be run that way, consider: What is campaigning? It's going around telling people why they should vote for you. In other words, it's speech. Which is protected by the constitution. There are some that argue that it's money, not speech, that is being regulated, but when you prohibit people from spending money on speech, you're regulating speech. Campaigning can be categorized into four main types:



        1. Self-financing: A candidate uses their own money to fund their campaign.


        2. Independent expenditures: Non-candidates use money to fund a campaign that is separate from the candidate. The candidate does not have any access or influence over the funds.


        3. Media Coverage: Candidates can get exposure by getting the media (and this includes not only "establishment" outlets such as TV news and newspapers, but also social media) to give them attention.


        4. Contributions to candidates: People give money to a candidate, and the candidate decides how to spend it.


        The Supreme Court has found that the first three types are constitutionally protected. The restrictions on the fourth are allowed, but eliminating contributions to candidates would just leave self-financing, independent expenditures, and the media as the only allowable campaigning methods. The first obviously favors wealthy candidates, the second means that campaigns are not accountable to the candidates (they are legally required to not be accountable), and the third allows large media corporations to dominate elections, as well as rewarding divisive behavior (the best way to get air time is to say something controversial). Banning contributions to candidates doesn't take money out of politics, it just gives more of an advantage to those who can pay for their own campaigns, have proxies act on their behalf, and/or manipulate the media.






        share|improve this answer



























          10














          While one can imagine an ideal world in which the political landscape is dominated by a "pull" paradigm (voters actively go out to find the information on the candidates), in the real world it's dominated by the "push" paradigm (voters passively receive information given to them). If you're asking why we can't have the first instead of the second, well, that's not what's happened. The fact that we don't already have that shows that it's just against human nature. One can call it laziness, or rational ignorance, but whatever you call it, that's just not how humans naturally behave. A government website where candidates can put up their platform simply can't compete with daily bombardment of messages regarding current events. Even if some voters visit the site (and most won't), they're not going to come back to it day after to day to see commentary on the campaign as it unfolds. It's the same reason why companies run ads, rather than just putting up a website telling people how great their product is, and then sitting back and waiting for people to visit.



          If you're suggesting that we force campaigns to be run that way, consider: What is campaigning? It's going around telling people why they should vote for you. In other words, it's speech. Which is protected by the constitution. There are some that argue that it's money, not speech, that is being regulated, but when you prohibit people from spending money on speech, you're regulating speech. Campaigning can be categorized into four main types:



          1. Self-financing: A candidate uses their own money to fund their campaign.


          2. Independent expenditures: Non-candidates use money to fund a campaign that is separate from the candidate. The candidate does not have any access or influence over the funds.


          3. Media Coverage: Candidates can get exposure by getting the media (and this includes not only "establishment" outlets such as TV news and newspapers, but also social media) to give them attention.


          4. Contributions to candidates: People give money to a candidate, and the candidate decides how to spend it.


          The Supreme Court has found that the first three types are constitutionally protected. The restrictions on the fourth are allowed, but eliminating contributions to candidates would just leave self-financing, independent expenditures, and the media as the only allowable campaigning methods. The first obviously favors wealthy candidates, the second means that campaigns are not accountable to the candidates (they are legally required to not be accountable), and the third allows large media corporations to dominate elections, as well as rewarding divisive behavior (the best way to get air time is to say something controversial). Banning contributions to candidates doesn't take money out of politics, it just gives more of an advantage to those who can pay for their own campaigns, have proxies act on their behalf, and/or manipulate the media.






          share|improve this answer

























            10












            10








            10







            While one can imagine an ideal world in which the political landscape is dominated by a "pull" paradigm (voters actively go out to find the information on the candidates), in the real world it's dominated by the "push" paradigm (voters passively receive information given to them). If you're asking why we can't have the first instead of the second, well, that's not what's happened. The fact that we don't already have that shows that it's just against human nature. One can call it laziness, or rational ignorance, but whatever you call it, that's just not how humans naturally behave. A government website where candidates can put up their platform simply can't compete with daily bombardment of messages regarding current events. Even if some voters visit the site (and most won't), they're not going to come back to it day after to day to see commentary on the campaign as it unfolds. It's the same reason why companies run ads, rather than just putting up a website telling people how great their product is, and then sitting back and waiting for people to visit.



            If you're suggesting that we force campaigns to be run that way, consider: What is campaigning? It's going around telling people why they should vote for you. In other words, it's speech. Which is protected by the constitution. There are some that argue that it's money, not speech, that is being regulated, but when you prohibit people from spending money on speech, you're regulating speech. Campaigning can be categorized into four main types:



            1. Self-financing: A candidate uses their own money to fund their campaign.


            2. Independent expenditures: Non-candidates use money to fund a campaign that is separate from the candidate. The candidate does not have any access or influence over the funds.


            3. Media Coverage: Candidates can get exposure by getting the media (and this includes not only "establishment" outlets such as TV news and newspapers, but also social media) to give them attention.


            4. Contributions to candidates: People give money to a candidate, and the candidate decides how to spend it.


            The Supreme Court has found that the first three types are constitutionally protected. The restrictions on the fourth are allowed, but eliminating contributions to candidates would just leave self-financing, independent expenditures, and the media as the only allowable campaigning methods. The first obviously favors wealthy candidates, the second means that campaigns are not accountable to the candidates (they are legally required to not be accountable), and the third allows large media corporations to dominate elections, as well as rewarding divisive behavior (the best way to get air time is to say something controversial). Banning contributions to candidates doesn't take money out of politics, it just gives more of an advantage to those who can pay for their own campaigns, have proxies act on their behalf, and/or manipulate the media.






            share|improve this answer













            While one can imagine an ideal world in which the political landscape is dominated by a "pull" paradigm (voters actively go out to find the information on the candidates), in the real world it's dominated by the "push" paradigm (voters passively receive information given to them). If you're asking why we can't have the first instead of the second, well, that's not what's happened. The fact that we don't already have that shows that it's just against human nature. One can call it laziness, or rational ignorance, but whatever you call it, that's just not how humans naturally behave. A government website where candidates can put up their platform simply can't compete with daily bombardment of messages regarding current events. Even if some voters visit the site (and most won't), they're not going to come back to it day after to day to see commentary on the campaign as it unfolds. It's the same reason why companies run ads, rather than just putting up a website telling people how great their product is, and then sitting back and waiting for people to visit.



            If you're suggesting that we force campaigns to be run that way, consider: What is campaigning? It's going around telling people why they should vote for you. In other words, it's speech. Which is protected by the constitution. There are some that argue that it's money, not speech, that is being regulated, but when you prohibit people from spending money on speech, you're regulating speech. Campaigning can be categorized into four main types:



            1. Self-financing: A candidate uses their own money to fund their campaign.


            2. Independent expenditures: Non-candidates use money to fund a campaign that is separate from the candidate. The candidate does not have any access or influence over the funds.


            3. Media Coverage: Candidates can get exposure by getting the media (and this includes not only "establishment" outlets such as TV news and newspapers, but also social media) to give them attention.


            4. Contributions to candidates: People give money to a candidate, and the candidate decides how to spend it.


            The Supreme Court has found that the first three types are constitutionally protected. The restrictions on the fourth are allowed, but eliminating contributions to candidates would just leave self-financing, independent expenditures, and the media as the only allowable campaigning methods. The first obviously favors wealthy candidates, the second means that campaigns are not accountable to the candidates (they are legally required to not be accountable), and the third allows large media corporations to dominate elections, as well as rewarding divisive behavior (the best way to get air time is to say something controversial). Banning contributions to candidates doesn't take money out of politics, it just gives more of an advantage to those who can pay for their own campaigns, have proxies act on their behalf, and/or manipulate the media.







            share|improve this answer












            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer










            answered 9 hours ago









            AcccumulationAcccumulation

            1,220413




            1,220413





















                6














                By strict interpretations of this rule, you end up as an effective one-party state very quickly.



                What counts as "campaigning" is the big question. Firstly, a lot of places have ballot signature requirements - you have to get N people to sign a piece of paper in order to be a candidate. Does that count as "campaigning"? If so, then suddenly you can't have any candidates!



                Are people allowed to mention that they're running as a candidate? Are they allowed to wear party colours or other identification? Are they allowed to give interviews to the press?



                Are third parties who somehow find out about the election allowed to campaign on behalf of candidates? Or have you just banned people talking about it at the office watercooler?



                Are political parties allowed at all in your scenario? What about their internal democratic processes of choosing a leader or candidates?



                Are turnout-improving processes (canvassing and "knocking up") allowed?



                What about pre-existing celebrities?



                Without all this lot, you end up with a strange world where the news reports that you're having an election, but you can't see or name any of the candidates, and this is the first anyone's heard of them, other than the incumbent. Perhaps someone presses an illegal flyer into your hand and runs away quickly.



                (There are plenty of discussions to be had about campaigning and finance, but this is not something to ban altogether!)






                share|improve this answer























                • Mostly, my question was about the money spent on campaigning, and not the speech itself. @Accumulation makes a solid point that the two are inseparable.

                  – Scott
                  8 hours ago















                6














                By strict interpretations of this rule, you end up as an effective one-party state very quickly.



                What counts as "campaigning" is the big question. Firstly, a lot of places have ballot signature requirements - you have to get N people to sign a piece of paper in order to be a candidate. Does that count as "campaigning"? If so, then suddenly you can't have any candidates!



                Are people allowed to mention that they're running as a candidate? Are they allowed to wear party colours or other identification? Are they allowed to give interviews to the press?



                Are third parties who somehow find out about the election allowed to campaign on behalf of candidates? Or have you just banned people talking about it at the office watercooler?



                Are political parties allowed at all in your scenario? What about their internal democratic processes of choosing a leader or candidates?



                Are turnout-improving processes (canvassing and "knocking up") allowed?



                What about pre-existing celebrities?



                Without all this lot, you end up with a strange world where the news reports that you're having an election, but you can't see or name any of the candidates, and this is the first anyone's heard of them, other than the incumbent. Perhaps someone presses an illegal flyer into your hand and runs away quickly.



                (There are plenty of discussions to be had about campaigning and finance, but this is not something to ban altogether!)






                share|improve this answer























                • Mostly, my question was about the money spent on campaigning, and not the speech itself. @Accumulation makes a solid point that the two are inseparable.

                  – Scott
                  8 hours ago













                6












                6








                6







                By strict interpretations of this rule, you end up as an effective one-party state very quickly.



                What counts as "campaigning" is the big question. Firstly, a lot of places have ballot signature requirements - you have to get N people to sign a piece of paper in order to be a candidate. Does that count as "campaigning"? If so, then suddenly you can't have any candidates!



                Are people allowed to mention that they're running as a candidate? Are they allowed to wear party colours or other identification? Are they allowed to give interviews to the press?



                Are third parties who somehow find out about the election allowed to campaign on behalf of candidates? Or have you just banned people talking about it at the office watercooler?



                Are political parties allowed at all in your scenario? What about their internal democratic processes of choosing a leader or candidates?



                Are turnout-improving processes (canvassing and "knocking up") allowed?



                What about pre-existing celebrities?



                Without all this lot, you end up with a strange world where the news reports that you're having an election, but you can't see or name any of the candidates, and this is the first anyone's heard of them, other than the incumbent. Perhaps someone presses an illegal flyer into your hand and runs away quickly.



                (There are plenty of discussions to be had about campaigning and finance, but this is not something to ban altogether!)






                share|improve this answer













                By strict interpretations of this rule, you end up as an effective one-party state very quickly.



                What counts as "campaigning" is the big question. Firstly, a lot of places have ballot signature requirements - you have to get N people to sign a piece of paper in order to be a candidate. Does that count as "campaigning"? If so, then suddenly you can't have any candidates!



                Are people allowed to mention that they're running as a candidate? Are they allowed to wear party colours or other identification? Are they allowed to give interviews to the press?



                Are third parties who somehow find out about the election allowed to campaign on behalf of candidates? Or have you just banned people talking about it at the office watercooler?



                Are political parties allowed at all in your scenario? What about their internal democratic processes of choosing a leader or candidates?



                Are turnout-improving processes (canvassing and "knocking up") allowed?



                What about pre-existing celebrities?



                Without all this lot, you end up with a strange world where the news reports that you're having an election, but you can't see or name any of the candidates, and this is the first anyone's heard of them, other than the incumbent. Perhaps someone presses an illegal flyer into your hand and runs away quickly.



                (There are plenty of discussions to be had about campaigning and finance, but this is not something to ban altogether!)







                share|improve this answer












                share|improve this answer



                share|improve this answer










                answered 8 hours ago









                pjc50pjc50

                5,2731226




                5,2731226












                • Mostly, my question was about the money spent on campaigning, and not the speech itself. @Accumulation makes a solid point that the two are inseparable.

                  – Scott
                  8 hours ago

















                • Mostly, my question was about the money spent on campaigning, and not the speech itself. @Accumulation makes a solid point that the two are inseparable.

                  – Scott
                  8 hours ago
















                Mostly, my question was about the money spent on campaigning, and not the speech itself. @Accumulation makes a solid point that the two are inseparable.

                – Scott
                8 hours ago





                Mostly, my question was about the money spent on campaigning, and not the speech itself. @Accumulation makes a solid point that the two are inseparable.

                – Scott
                8 hours ago











                3














                Considerations around freedom of speech would be the biggest obstacle. Obviously, the main consideration here is the Citizens United vs. FEC Supreme Court decision. Since this decision states that corporations, unions, and non-profit organizations may spend as much as they want on political advertisements, any attempt to restrict campaigning by a non-profit group would fall afoul of this immediately.



                However, older and broader precedents also come into play. Restricting campaigning would require preventing the candidate from attending gatherings of their supporters, such as rallies, likely violating the free assembly provision of the First Amendment of the US Constitution. It would also prevent them from spending their own money on advertising, which was allowed before Citizens United, e.g. under Buckley. Hypothetically, such a prohibition could even prohibit a politician stating their political views on their own personal blog.



                There are also some pragmatic issues with the particular implementation you're proposing that would make it difficult. The government would also need to provide money for travel and lodging at the debates, to replace the lost funding from campaigns.






                share|improve this answer





























                  3














                  Considerations around freedom of speech would be the biggest obstacle. Obviously, the main consideration here is the Citizens United vs. FEC Supreme Court decision. Since this decision states that corporations, unions, and non-profit organizations may spend as much as they want on political advertisements, any attempt to restrict campaigning by a non-profit group would fall afoul of this immediately.



                  However, older and broader precedents also come into play. Restricting campaigning would require preventing the candidate from attending gatherings of their supporters, such as rallies, likely violating the free assembly provision of the First Amendment of the US Constitution. It would also prevent them from spending their own money on advertising, which was allowed before Citizens United, e.g. under Buckley. Hypothetically, such a prohibition could even prohibit a politician stating their political views on their own personal blog.



                  There are also some pragmatic issues with the particular implementation you're proposing that would make it difficult. The government would also need to provide money for travel and lodging at the debates, to replace the lost funding from campaigns.






                  share|improve this answer



























                    3












                    3








                    3







                    Considerations around freedom of speech would be the biggest obstacle. Obviously, the main consideration here is the Citizens United vs. FEC Supreme Court decision. Since this decision states that corporations, unions, and non-profit organizations may spend as much as they want on political advertisements, any attempt to restrict campaigning by a non-profit group would fall afoul of this immediately.



                    However, older and broader precedents also come into play. Restricting campaigning would require preventing the candidate from attending gatherings of their supporters, such as rallies, likely violating the free assembly provision of the First Amendment of the US Constitution. It would also prevent them from spending their own money on advertising, which was allowed before Citizens United, e.g. under Buckley. Hypothetically, such a prohibition could even prohibit a politician stating their political views on their own personal blog.



                    There are also some pragmatic issues with the particular implementation you're proposing that would make it difficult. The government would also need to provide money for travel and lodging at the debates, to replace the lost funding from campaigns.






                    share|improve this answer















                    Considerations around freedom of speech would be the biggest obstacle. Obviously, the main consideration here is the Citizens United vs. FEC Supreme Court decision. Since this decision states that corporations, unions, and non-profit organizations may spend as much as they want on political advertisements, any attempt to restrict campaigning by a non-profit group would fall afoul of this immediately.



                    However, older and broader precedents also come into play. Restricting campaigning would require preventing the candidate from attending gatherings of their supporters, such as rallies, likely violating the free assembly provision of the First Amendment of the US Constitution. It would also prevent them from spending their own money on advertising, which was allowed before Citizens United, e.g. under Buckley. Hypothetically, such a prohibition could even prohibit a politician stating their political views on their own personal blog.



                    There are also some pragmatic issues with the particular implementation you're proposing that would make it difficult. The government would also need to provide money for travel and lodging at the debates, to replace the lost funding from campaigns.







                    share|improve this answer














                    share|improve this answer



                    share|improve this answer








                    edited 8 hours ago

























                    answered 8 hours ago









                    Obie 2.0Obie 2.0

                    1,054313




                    1,054313





















                        3















                        Why can't we simply disallow campaigning altogether?




                        From the First Amendment of the US Constitution:




                        Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech...







                        share|improve this answer










                        New contributor




                        user25542 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                        Check out our Code of Conduct.
























                          3















                          Why can't we simply disallow campaigning altogether?




                          From the First Amendment of the US Constitution:




                          Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech...







                          share|improve this answer










                          New contributor




                          user25542 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                          Check out our Code of Conduct.






















                            3












                            3








                            3








                            Why can't we simply disallow campaigning altogether?




                            From the First Amendment of the US Constitution:




                            Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech...







                            share|improve this answer










                            New contributor




                            user25542 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                            Check out our Code of Conduct.











                            Why can't we simply disallow campaigning altogether?




                            From the First Amendment of the US Constitution:




                            Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech...








                            share|improve this answer










                            New contributor




                            user25542 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                            Check out our Code of Conduct.









                            share|improve this answer



                            share|improve this answer








                            edited 2 hours ago









                            JJJ

                            4,59922144




                            4,59922144






                            New contributor




                            user25542 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                            Check out our Code of Conduct.









                            answered 4 hours ago









                            user25542user25542

                            311




                            311




                            New contributor




                            user25542 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                            Check out our Code of Conduct.





                            New contributor





                            user25542 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                            Check out our Code of Conduct.






                            user25542 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                            Check out our Code of Conduct.



























                                draft saved

                                draft discarded
















































                                Thanks for contributing an answer to Politics Stack Exchange!


                                • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                                But avoid


                                • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                                • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

                                To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                                draft saved


                                draft discarded














                                StackExchange.ready(
                                function ()
                                StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f39368%2fban-on-all-campaign-finance%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                                );

                                Post as a guest















                                Required, but never shown





















































                                Required, but never shown














                                Required, but never shown












                                Required, but never shown







                                Required, but never shown

































                                Required, but never shown














                                Required, but never shown












                                Required, but never shown







                                Required, but never shown







                                Popular posts from this blog

                                Magento 2 duplicate PHPSESSID cookie when using session_start() in custom php scriptMagento 2: User cant logged in into to account page, no error showing!Magento duplicate on subdomainGrabbing storeview from cookie (after using language selector)How do I run php custom script on magento2Magento 2: Include PHP script in headerSession lock after using Cm_RedisSessionscript php to update stockMagento set cookie popupMagento 2 session id cookie - where to find it?How to import Configurable product from csv with custom attributes using php scriptMagento 2 run custom PHP script

                                Can not update quote_id field of “quote_item” table magento 2Magento 2.1 - We can't remove the item. (Shopping Cart doesnt allow us to remove items before becomes empty)Add value for custom quote item attribute using REST apiREST API endpoint v1/carts/cartId/items always returns error messageCorrect way to save entries to databaseHow to remove all associated quote objects of a customer completelyMagento 2 - Save value from custom input field to quote_itemGet quote_item data using quote id and product id filter in Magento 2How to set additional data to quote_item table from controller in Magento 2?What is the purpose of additional_data column in quote_item table in magento2Set Custom Price to Quote item magento2 from controller

                                How to solve knockout JS error in Magento 2 Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 23:30 UTC (7:30pm US/Eastern) Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Unicorn Meta Zoo #1: Why another podcast?(Magento2) knockout.js:3012 Uncaught ReferenceError: Unable to process bindingUnable to process binding Knockout.js magento 2Cannot read property `scopeLabel` of undefined on Product Detail PageCan't get Customer Data on frontend in Magento 2Magento2 Order Summary - unable to process bindingKO templates are not loading in Magento 2.1 applicationgetting knockout js error magento 2Product grid not load -— Unable to process binding Knockout.js magento 2Product form not loaded in magento2Uncaught ReferenceError: Unable to process binding “if: function()return (isShowLegend()) ” magento 2