Speak Outs
Speak Out
Should there be a limit on campaign donations from individuals?

October 10, 2013

By Jeremy Quattlebaum, Student Voices staff writer

The Supreme Court revisited the issue of campaign finance in early October, hearing arguments on a case that asks whether there should be a limit on the total amount that an individual can donate to political candidates and political parties during an election cycle.

The case, McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, pits wealthy Alabama businessman Shaun McCutcheon against the federal agency that monitors and enforces the laws concerning campaign finances.

McCutcheon likes to give money to candidates and political committees. He has donated thousands of dollars to campaigns; campaign finance laws prevent him from contributing more. Federal law limits the total amount that an individual can give during an election cycle.

McCutcheon argues that the money he spends on campaigns is how he voices his public opinion and that his right to free expression is protected by the First Amendment. He says the limit on the aggregate amount, or total amount, of donations infringes on his rights. In 2010, the Supreme Court decided in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that "independent" spending on elections was a form of free speech protected by the Constitution. The decision allowed corporations and unions to spend an unlimited amount on candidate elections.

 In 1974, after the fallout from the Watergate scandal, laws were enacted that created the structure for campaign finance regulations. The laws capped the amount that an individual can directly donate to any one candidate or to a political party.

The laws restrict individuals to a total of $123,200 in donations to candidates, national party organizations and certain political committees. Of that $123,200 total, only $48,600 can be donated to candidates. Furthermore, the law sets a limit of $2,600 that a person can give to an individual candidate for federal office for each election cycle. Simply put, a person can legally donate a maximum $2,600 to 18 candidates.

These measures are aimed at reducing the possibility that a wealthy individual essentially pays for a candidate’s victory and later benefits from the lawmaker’s influence.

In 2012, McCutcheon gave about $33,000 to 16 congressional candidates and a similar amount to Republican Party committees. And he wants to be able to  give more than the $48,600 for candidates and $70,000 for party committees.

McCutcheon says he is fighting not the amount that a person can give to a candidate, only the aggregate limit. James Bopp Jr., who represents the Republican National Committee, which is also trying to strike down the law, argued before the court, “This is a limit on how many candidates you support, not on how much you give them.”

Bopp went on to say that McCutcheon “holds firm convictions on the proper role of government” and “opposes numerous and ill-conceived and overreaching laws.” Bopp said McCutcheon wants more “federal officeholders who share his beliefs.”

Attorney Fred Wertheimer, a proponent of campaign finance laws, argues that without the limit, “the speaker of the House or the Democratic leader of the House could go to Mr. McCutcheon and ask him for a check for well over $2 million.” “It is that relationship – that $2 million solicited by a powerful officeholder and given by a donor – that creates the corruption relationship that the court says Congress can prohibit.”

Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr., representing the Obama administration, which supports campaign donation limits, argued before the court that if the limits were struck down, there would be a real risk of having “a government by and for the 500 people” who will write the $3 million checks to party officials.

“It would be terrible for our democracy ... if one politician could directly solicit $3.6 million from a single donor,” said Lawrence Norden, an election-law expert with the Brennan Center, a liberal legal advocacy group in New York. “That is 70 times the median income for an American family. It would mean a tiny, tiny group of donors would wield unprecedented power and influence.”

What do you think?

Is a campaign donation a form of free speech? Should there be a limit on how much a person can donate to a campaign? Should there be a limit on the total amount that a person can donate to candidates or political parties? Does campaign finance regulation lead to fairer, more open elections?
Join the Discussion
 
 
 
limited to 2000 characters including spaces  



Thank you for commenting.
Your comment is awaiting approval.
Click here to view all Speak Outs
Comments
12/12/2013
Shoreline, Washington
Christina G
Knox/ Shorewood
Speech can be expressed in a variety of ways and does not have to be limited to only talking. Art and words can be used to express an idea or opinion. In my own opinion, I do believe that campaign donations are a form of free speech. Donations allow you express your support for a specific candidate. Though campaign donations may be protected under the First Amendment, donations should continue to be regulated. Wealthy individuals should not be able to donate millions of dollars to a candidate of their choice simply becuase they have the power to do so. Campaign regulations aid in keeping elections fair and equal for all candidates involved. If one candidate recieves millions from one donor while the opposing candidate receives half that amount, the elections will not necessarily be fair. The candidate that receives more aid will be able to spend more on their campaign and draw in more support. Without campaign donation restrcitions, extremely wealthy individuals may be able to pour millions into the campaign of one candidate. With restrictions, being extremely wealthy will not aid in one candidate's success. The donation playing field is more even. Even if you are extremely wealthy you will not be able to pour in more money than someone who may not be as wealthy as you. Candidates may become more corrupt as well since donors may gain more influence over their candidate and the decisions they make in office.

12/12/2013
Shoreline WA
Emily
Ms. Knox Shorewood High School
Campaign donations are a form of free speech. However, the rights given in the constitution cannot violate the rights of others when they are acted upon. Large campaign donations violate the free speech rights of other individuals, who are not able to contribute as much. In this way you are telling those with less that because they cannot provide as much funds, the candidates they support are less likely to win the election. Therefore their vote, and in turn they themselves, are worthless. This is also an issue because it makes people feel like, if they don't have a lot of money to give away, that they aren't worth as much as those who do, and they also don't have as much of say, or any say at all. I believe large campaign donations control elections, and that they destroy democracy not only in who has more say, but also participation in our country by the general public.

12/12/2013
Shoreline/WA
Erik
Ms.knox/shorewood
I think there should be a limit on the amount a person can donate, and it should be an amount reasonable for any person of any income to give. The unlimited donations makes for a political system that caters to the wealthy which is not good for a functioning democracy. I think it should be a set amount so that campaigners get support in numbers of people they influence not how wealthy of people they influence.

11/15/2013
Irving/Texas
Leanna
Bradley/Nimitz
Campaign donation seems to be a form of free speech. I think that it should be legal to give a bigger amount, but it should be stopped if it is happening to frequently. It should be illegal to have a single person to give amounts up to millions of dollars. That would be unfair. It would give the person an unfair advantage and should be completely illegal.

11/14/2013
Irving/Texas
Teven
Bradley/Nimitz
Campaign donations are a form of free speech, but only when they do not infringe upon any other citizen's rights. If upper-class spend more money supporting an election than even the average middle class citizen makes in an entire year, then they are using their right to free speech to metaphorically shout down the competition. As such, there should be a limit on the numbers that a citizen should be able to donate; a limit based on the income of our poorest citizens. All Americans should have the right to express themselves on equal grounding to each other. However, as long as the limit that a citizen can donate to a single elective is not exceeded, they may donate to as many people as they like, regardless of party. This will lead to fairer, more open elections where all can be heard equally.

11/14/2013
Irving/Texas
Daniel I
Bradley/Nimitz
Campaign donations are a form of free speech. I don't think there should be a limit on how much a person can donate to a campaign. I believe that the amount that a candidate receives from donations for their campaign shows how much they are supported. When a citizen votes, it shows that they support the person they voted for and their views. Donating a big amount just shows how much support they are receiving. Shouldn't the person with the most support be holding office? At the same time, depending on what the election is for there should be a limit so that way we don't end up with a president who was elected into office purely because of the fact he had the most money.

11/14/2013
Irving/ Texas
Emily
Bradley/Nimitz
A donation is a form of free will and speech. You are giving money to something you strongly believe in and therefore you are expressing your voice to a cause. However, I do think their should be a limit on how much money you can donate especially when it comes down to elections and someone coming to power. If their is no rule on how much money you can donate their would be monopolies of wealthy men running for a certain campaign and who can compete against that? Money can certainly buy people but that is not the point when it comes to someone being elected for the better of a state or even the whole nation. Their should be a limit on how much money someone can donate it wouldn't be fair if someone won because he/she had money supporting him the whole way.

11/14/2013
Irving/TX
Aaron
Bradley/Nimitz
Throwing out any political-overtones and just looking at this from a competitive standpoint, the act of donating to a certain campaign, in my opinion, should be considered fair and reasonbable. However, seeing as how this could give an unfair (a contradiction to my previous sentence, I know) advantage to those who could easily out-donate other competitors, I think it just comes down to the amount of dedication a certain individual has----meaning, if they want to waste, or "donate" a large amount of money to a certain campaign, let them. At the end of the day, everything they do is left up to chance; so if they have enough confidence that their person will win, let them. And if their person doesn't, well.....who told them to spend that much money in the first place?

11/14/2013
Irving/Texas
Daniel S.
Bradley/Nimitz
I believe donations are represented as a form of taking action for a cause. It's not necessarily a form of free speech. I mean I guess in a way it could be classified as a means of free action, but going as far as saying it's protected by ones right to free speech I don't agree with. I believe it would be unfair for a single person to donate a large sum of money to another higher class individual. The advantage that member would have over another, I believe would be significant enough to help sway votes to said side. Overall the issue is being handled how it should, and If it were up to me I would put a stop to it very quickly.

11/14/2013
Irving/TX
Annabel
Bradley/Nimitz
There should be a limit on campaign donations for the simple reason that buying a candidate's position into office is a form of corruption. By allowing donors to buy a candidate's position into office, we are furthermore allowing the wealthy to influence the lives of average (or less than average) individuals. This being said, campaign donations cannot be defined as a form of free speech, but rather as an action of interest. Therefore, placing a limit on how much a person can donate to a campaign or candidate cannot be accused of violating the 1st amendment.

11/14/2013
Irving, Texas
Jacob F
Bradley/Nimitz
At a certain angle, campaign donations can be a form of free speech because you would donate to someone who shares the same values and motives as you. Using this, it would mean that this action is protected by the First Amendment. However, while one person's free speech is being utilized, it may be infringing upon someone else's availability for free speech as someone may not be able to donate as much as another (using money as the form of "free speech," that is). Based on this, I believe that there should be a limit on how much a person can donate to candidate or a party because if one candidate has more resources than another candidate, there is obviously an unequal balance. In the end, it may not matter how much money is spent on campaigning because the candidate may not get elected and the donor is out however much they donated.

11/14/2013
Irving/Tx
Brian J.
Bradley/Nimitz
Donations seem to be a form of free action, not speech. I believe it should be legal in larger amounts but it shouldn't happen too much. If one person, though, is allowed to give millions of dollars to one campaign that would be completely unfair. That would be giving the campaigner a serious advantage and would, in my mind, be completely illegal.

11/14/2013
Irving/Texas
Rudy
Bradley/Nimitz HS
In 2010, The Supreme Court did rule that Free Speech can come in the form of a private organization’s check for an election campaign, in the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. However, I believe limitations on certain rights, such as limits on donations, are essential to reducing the amount of corruption in the United States government on every level. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli couldn’t have said it better myself, “A government by the people, for the 500 people.” I also think the same limit should be applied to political parties. The campaign elections would be conducted fairly with campaign finance regulation.

11/14/2013
Irving/Texas
Lyndsey
Bradley/Nimitz
I believe donation is a form of free speech. It is your money and you are using it on what you want. In this instance McCutcheon is using his money to donate to candidates. By donating he is helping who he feels should win, or who he feels should have a better chance of winning. If the person he donated to wins that person is sort of like his voice. I do think there should be a limit on how much someone can donate. I think it would be unfair if someone could just donate however much they wanted to. It would sort of be like the candidate was buying their win. Not everyone has enough money to do whatever they want with their money. By regulating the finance on elections, it does make them fairer. It gives everyone an even playing field.

11/13/2013
Irving/Texas
Jose A.
Bradley/Nimitz
I believe that a person can donate to a campaign in order to voice their opinion. However, I also believe that there should be a limit donations. Otherwise the government would be ran by a small group of wealthy men. This would, in time, lead the American government into a deep hole of corruption that would be nearly impossible to get out of. Regulating the amount of money would make elections fairer and more open for the people.

11/13/2013
Rudyard/ MT
Sarah M.
Mrs. Campbell/ North Star
Yes, a donation to a campaign is a form of free speech because you can support any candidate you choose. In a perfect society I think it would be okay for there to be no limit to the amount of money given; however, that is not what we have. People are corrupt and will try to move up the "power ladder" as fast as they can, and by whatever means necessary. This isn't always the case, but those few people ruin it for everyone. Mr. McCutcheon might be an upstanding citizen who won't use his million dollar donations as bribery tools, but other people might; and because of that regulation should be in place. These laws should also bring forth the most worthy candidate, because if that person has the best policies, they should receive ample financial support from the people. If there were no regulations than the chances of having the right person in office are that much less.

11/11/2013
Irving/Texas
David W.
Bradley/Nimitz HS
I believe donating to a campaign is a form of free speech, but there should also be a limit on how much is given to the certain campaigns. An excess of donations and money to one person can lead to corruption. If candidates have millions of dollars, they can spend a lot more on campaigning and would have a better chance of winning the election. The winner would then use their power to support the small wealthy group that donated so much money. Regulating the amount of money allowed to be donated would lead to more fair elections.

11/7/2013
Irving/Texas
Cyndel
Bradley/Nimitz
I do believe that it is a form of freedom of speech.This way they are expressing their contentment towards a certain candidate and their ideals.I do believe though that there should be a limit on the amount one can “invest” or donate in regard to a political campaign. This way people don’t put all of their hopes and wallets in a party or candidate that might not even win and the money go elsewhere. It would lead to fairer political campaigns because they aren’t dazzled by the amount of money that a certain individual or party is investing in order to get their “point” across. This way there is not a monetary issue regarding the minimum amount one can spend on the a campaign ,but make it easier for everyone to be able to participate.

11/4/2013
Irving/Texas
Viviana
Bradley/Nimitz
In my opinion, the campaign donations are definitely forms of free speech. Although this freedom should exist, a limit on how much a person can donate to a campaign is needed in order to make sure that a single candidate isn't supported way too much by a donor- this is unfair. The total amount that a person can donate to candidates or political parties doesn't necessarily have to be limited as long as this amount isn't all going to one sole candidate. The campaign finance regulation definitely leads to fairer, more open elections by reducing the influence of money on campaigns.

11/4/2013
Martinez/California
Kevin K.
Yunis/Alhambra
I believe that campaign donations are a form of free speech, and as such it should not be able to be taken away from them. If they want to support their views on politics by backing a specific party or candidate then they should be able to. There also shouldn't be a limit on how much an individual can contribute to a specific campaign. If someone has earned their money, then they should be able to spend it or donate it however they wish. This campaign finance regulation doesn't lead to more open elections, as it stymies the people who wish to donate more individually but they can not, forcing them to go through PACs and Super PACs, which will then get the money there anyway. The whole argument of how there is too much money being donated by a single individual falls apart when one thinks of how much money is actually spent on campaigns. Billions upon billions of dollars are spent, so if I were to donate one million dollars, I'm still only donating less than a tenth of a percent of the overall money donated to campaigns. This regulation of money is a waste of our resources, and frankly should not have existed.

10/31/2013
Irving/Texas
Christian S
Bradley/Nimitz
Campaign donations are a way of showing free speech but at the same time it can be seen as otherwise, Depending on what type of election their should be a limit.Yes there should be a limit because it defiantly effects and elections and changes the way it may go or not. So it kinda changes the fairness.

10/29/2013
Irving/Texas
Laura G
Bradley/Nimitz HS
I see a campaign donation as a form of freedom of speech because it allows a person to feel free in his or her beliefs. I don't think there should be a limit on how much someone can donate. If a person feels that they should donate, why should they be limited?

10/27/2013
Irving/TX
Brandon
Bradley/Nimitz
I believe that campaign donation are a form of free expression as it allows a person an opportunity to support his beliefs. However, I do believe that a limit on how much a person can donate to a campaign is vital. If someone is allowed to donate millions to a campaign, he might hold some unfair influence on certain policies. Thus I agree that campaign finance regulation indeed leads to fairer, more open elections.

10/26/2013
Irving/TX
Yamilleth
Bradley/Nimitz
No. An individual can give out their opinion on a certain subject, but were talking about money that is being used into an election, that can impact the way many citizens think. Yes there should be a limit because it is unfair to the other candidate running against whoever it is that is getting excessive amounts of donations. More money means more advertisement and connections you can get to spread your name around. Basically buying the election. Plus more people would be persuaded by all the lavishness one candidate is giving out, instead of really looking at their politics and what they represent. Each candidate should be given an equal amount of representation, with the same amount of money to benefit from. The donater has to realize that its not as simple as giving out donations, they are impacting an election that will persuade the minds of many individuals.

10/25/2013
Irving/Tx
Pedro
Bradley/Nimitz
I don't think that campaign donation is a form of free speech, but that doesn't mean that there should be a limit on how much a person can donate to a campaign. Donating is something that comes from the heart of a person, whether for personal gain or because they really do want to support, and should be limited only by the person donating. There shouldn't be a limit on the total amount that a person can donate to candidates or political parties because in the end it's the people donating that either lose or gain and it should be up to them. I think that campaign finance regulation would lead to fairer, more open elections. It seems like politicians are buying their offices with the help of donors who provide more money than the donors of the opponent(s), but I believe that's not always the case.

10/25/2013
Irving/TX
Scotty C.
Bradley/Nimitz
Donating to a campaign is a form of free speech in my opinion. If an individual has a strong passion for anything, they should be able to donate as much as they want. That's the beauty of America. We have competition in all areas, and the more one person donates to something, the more another person will likely donate to the opposing idea, if they feel strongly about it. There should definitely be no restrictions on any donations.

10/24/2013
Irving, TX
Jesus G.
Bradley/Nimitz HS
I believe a campaign donation is not a form of speech.I do not think there should be a limit on how much someone can donate for the reason people vote on the person by what they will do for the them.There should not be a limit on how much someone can donate because its the person's money and he can spent it on whatever he would like to use it for a benefit towards him.I believe it does make it fairer campaign finance regulation.

10/24/2013
Irving/Tx
Jordan B.
Bradley/Nimitz
Free speech can have many definitions. Is donating money one of them? A person should be able to spend their like they want right? I honestly think that if you want to spend your money, then spend it on something that you feel that is worth it. On campaigns though, if the person is willing to spend thousands upon thousands of dollars to help who they want to win then let them! Who ever is getting mad is just showing that they are sore losers in a sense.

10/24/2013
Rudyard/MT
Whitney
Campbell/North Star
A campaign donation is a form of speech. Yes, there needs to be a limit on how much a person can donate to a candidate, campaign, and political parties. If there was no limit then people would give a lot in hopes that they would get something in return. Therefor there would be a lot of corrupt relationships. Plus people who are wealthier are able to donate more money than ones who have less so they already have a better out come. Then by giving more they might get that relationship to have a tie in with the government getting even more power which is unfair to the people. Setting campaign regulations do lead to fairer and more open elections.

10/24/2013
Irving/Tx
Hannah W.
Bradley/Nimitz
The amount of money that you give a campaign could essentially be a way that you express how much you like the person that you are supporting. This could be seen as a way of free speech. So why would you want to limit someone’s freedom of speech. With the laws that that have some about it looks like they are not wanting people to give excessive amounts of money to a certain campaign. But this actually could be a good thing. With putting limits on how much you can contribute to a campaign, you would be not as much in danger of wasting money if the person that you helped had not won the election. Now wouldn’t that be a shame if you gave them an excessive amount of money but the person not win. This is why it is a good idea to have limits on the amount of money you spend during elections and campaigns.

10/24/2013
Rudyard/MT
Kristyn
Campbell/North Star
A campaign donation is a form of free speech. The problem is though that many people want some sort of power, so they try to take advantage of their rights. This is why limits should be set. Limits should be set to make sure that a corruption relationship doesn't take place. If there weren't any limits, then besides having power just from being rich, people will start to have more power due to their direct ties within the government. With these limits, elections do become fairer and more open by putting the whole electorate on an even playing field.

10/24/2013
Irving/TX
Sergio G.
Bradley/Nimitz
I believe that campaign donations are a freedom of speech, but in the U.S. there seems to be many things that would categorize in to the first amendment that have limits set forth for the same reason, because people always seem to find a way to take advantage of their rights. This is why I believe their should be a limit to how much can be donated, not for the wrong doing of the money, but for most likely the purchase of that persons word that is being made with that money. Usually with big donations the donor expects something in return for his generosity. So yes, these are the reasons why I believe campaign finance regulations do indeed lead to a more equal election.

10/23/2013
Irving/TX
Edward H.
Bradley/Nimitz
I believe campaign donations should be counted towards a form of free speech. People should be able to donate as much money towards a campaign as they want too. Now I believe someone should really look into it to see if it is not a corrupt system or anything. But, If nothing is going on and the people are actually using that money towards their campaign, they should be able to donate as much as they want to. Campaign finance regulations will not really lead to fairer, more open elections. Because if one candidate has more connections with the richer side of their region, they will have a greater advantage than a new candidate trying to make a name for themselves.

10/23/2013
Irving/TX
Joseph C.
Bradley/Nimitz
I think that a donation is a form of free speech because in order to donate you have to choose to speak out to people, and get them to follow your cause. There should not be a limit on donating either because the whole point is to raise as much money as you can. The more money you get the better, but it is the person's choice to decide how much or how little they donate.. I think the same should go for donations to candidate and political parties. If a person decides to really donate a lot of money that just shows how much they are willing to help them. Although. if they do not wish to donate that much its still their choice.

10/22/2013
Irving/TX
Kristiyan
Bradley/Nimitz
A campaign donation is a form of free speech because as an individual you can either chose to support a cause such as a charity or event, or a person may not want to be a part of these things. There should not be a limit on how much a person can donate to a cmapiagn because some people are more financially stable than others and it will always be like this. Not all individuals or even families are wealthy, and may not have the opportunity to donate an amount a wealthy family is able to. When it all comes down to the elections between different parties, it is no one's fault that people did not donate or support a specific party. However, this can definitely influence voting outcomes, and one candidate should not be affected based on money and donations. In conclusion no matter what happens, the most favored and supported candidate will win an election.

10/21/2013
Irving/Texas
Monica M. M.
Bradley/Nimitz
A campaign donation is a form of free speech because it’s a type of support. A person may wish to support a charity with no limitations therefore it should be the same with campaigns. Why is it a difference if it’s only support? The people want a candidate they will trust and like throughout their term that would be served therefore the money would be only for their benefits. There would be no harm in doing donations if it has no serious effect on the candidate or the people. The campaign would remain fair because the support has been won by the people. That is why donations are being made. It is the other candidates own fault if no money has been donated.

10/20/2013
Irving/tx
Elizabeth C.
Bradley/Nimitz
I believe that a campaign donation is definitely a form of free speech. With that being said, I certainly do not believe that there should be limitations. If an individual chooses to spend their money on a campaign, then they should have every right to do so without being limited. The same applies to donations to specific candidates or political parties. Campaign finance regulations would only be a form of injustice by limiting ones full potential to support.

10/19/2013
Irving/Tx
Alonzo
Bradley/Nimitz
I believe anyone has the right to do whatever they want with their hard own money. They worked and earned that money fair and square so they should be allowed to share it with whoever they want. It is most definitely following the first amendment because it is giving him the right to express him self. The first amendment is not only about freedom of speech, It allows you to express your religion and yourself. So if it means to give out money to support what you desire, there should be nothing wrong with that. There is limits on what you can express, donating to a campaign isn't one of them.

10/18/2013
Irving/Texas
Sarah M.
Bradley/Nimitz
A campaign donation certainly is a form of free speech. By supporting a party with donations we are ‘voicing’ our preferences. Speech does not necessarily have to be spoken words. Like most things, freedom of speech does not come without limits. When in school there are certain things we cannot say, and it is punishable if we talk back to a teacher. We also can get into trouble for expressing negative opinions about other races or religions. But, as far as how much money we can give, I see no problem in allowing anyone to donate money. They are not sending any kind of negative idea by donating; they are merely supporting something they are passionate about. Limits should not be put on how much money one can give away. Donating wouldn't make an election unfair; it would give the most liked candidate a better chance at winning.

10/18/2013
Irving/Texas
Chadwick
Bradley/Nimitz
I believe that campaign donations do fall under the guidelines of freedom of speech and expression however a limit is necessary to ensure no one candidate is influenced too heavily by a donor. The limit to how much a person can donate to a specific person directly should be limited while the aggregate total can be unlimited as this total is not directly to a person up for candidacy. The current restriction however is one that limits the number of candidates supported as well as the amount to a specific person. Campaign finance regulation does lead to an overall fairer election; however, with an unlimited amount of people who can support an individual, the chances of a completely fair election are very, very, slim. At the same time, I don’t want one donor to give such a great amount of money that the candidate feels influenced by that person’s interests.

10/17/2013
Irving/TX
Hailey
Bradley/Nimitz
I think giving money to a campaign can be considered a form of freedom of speech, because its showing support for an individual or party. Its like putting yard signs up or making posters, just a way of showing support. I don’t think there should be a limit on how much a person can donate. I believe that if a person has enough money to donate a lot to a specific candidate or party, they should be able to give as much as they want. I think a person should have the right to express their support through donations of any price they would like. I think it leads to a campaign where the most supported and favored candidate will most likely win.

10/17/2013
Irving/Tx
Marissa
Bradley/Nimitz
I do believe that the donation of money is a form of free speech becuase, it's that person's hard earned money to do with as they please. There should be limits on doantions to campaigns because it takes away from the people who don't have the money to support their own campaign, so the true opinions of the people would most likely not be heard. Though money should be spent the way a person wants, there should be a limit on how much a person can donate to a candidate or political party due to the fact that if everyone donated to whatever campaign they wanted then the whole system of democracy would be almost pointless because people would pay for who they want in office.

10/17/2013
Irving/TX
Reyanna
Bradley/Nimitz
In my opinion , I think that people should be able to donate as much money as they want to the to the political candidates and political parties. This is a way for the people to feel like they have a say and a way for them to voice their opinion. I understand that a limit is wanted because we don't want an individual to buy the candidates victory, but i think that we should just let the people do what they want with their money. Its for a good cause. The only time i would put a limit is if it were an unbelievable amount of money that should not have been donated to just one candidate.

10/16/2013
Irving/Tx
Miriam
Bradley/Nimitz
Freedom in speech is often defined as the expression of feeling, thoughts, and other important information. By campaign donations, politicians has the ability of spreads these ideas. However, there are many instances in which our freedom of expression has been limited. For example, vulgar words, ethnic hatred, and obscenity. In others words, we are limited in what we can do or say and there should be a limit on the amount of money donated to campaigns, candidates, or political parties. By doing so we are giving too much power to a single individuals or a small group of individuals. There should be a limit on how much can be donated to ensure that no one has more power than someone else

Related News
Related Resources
Share