Quote:
|
Originally Posted by KMA-628
/playing devil's advocate here....
However, you immediately accepted an amendment that is very much a "strikethrough" to personal freedoms.
If I can't give money to a campaign, what else are you gonna tell me I can't do?
|
The purpose of government is to regulate society (via individuals in many cases) in order to promote the general welfare and advancement of society. Having a government that does not tell you some things you are not allowed to do is utopian, and in being so, is inconsequential to the discussion.
Personal or corporate finanancing influences the candidates. In my "idealized" government, the whole idea is to remove pressures which would affect the candidates/legislators stances, therefore we could not have private donations to politicians in any way. The finanacing for campaigns would have to be equal (to be fair) and government-sponsored. If too many people wanted to run, there would have to be some kind of preliminary polling to eliminate some of the candidates so government apportions for advertising would be limited. The individual should still incur a cost, however (in the form of a candidacy fee?), to keep just anyone from running for office since the gov't pays for the campaigns.