Discussions
Question #1
There has been great debate whether a candidate should be limited or have regulated spending in regards to their funds during campaigning. Although there are plenty of other ways money can be spent especially because these phones are wasted on voters who are already devoted for specific candidate. Furthermore I would argue for the amount of money a candidate should be able to obtain, thus keeping an even number across the board between all running parties would help to alleviate corporations expecting favors. However if a canididate decides to run for a seat they should be able to fund or raise the needed money for their campaign, but with set restriction. Indeed it seems as if the richest candidates are always guaranteed to win, unfortunatly even those without money should be given a fair chance for a successful campaign. In addition to having limits on what a candidate can receive from individuals, I also believe that they must disclose where they receive …show more content…
Next, the ACS group is coordinated with over a million contributions to federal candidates and a little over million from individuals who contributed 200 dollars or more to the campaign. In addition to, American Crystal Sugar supports both house representatives for Republican Party and Democratic, however they contributed more to the Republican Party thus far. Not only do they contribute money to the house but also to several individuals of the senate and one presidential candidate for the Republican Party, Marco Rubio. For the most part, contributions provided by PAC are beneficial and indeed help with the spending’s of candidates running for election. In addition to, with all the coordinated contributions from smaller groups or individuals citizens insures a sufficient way of raising money without the company having to foot the entire contribution0
Question #1
There has been great debate whether a candidate should be limited or have regulated spending in regards to their funds during campaigning. Although there are plenty of other ways money can be spent especially because these phones are wasted on voters who are already devoted for specific candidate. Furthermore I would argue for the amount of money a candidate should be able to obtain, thus keeping an even number across the board between all running parties would help to alleviate corporations expecting favors. However if a canididate decides to run for a seat they should be able to fund or raise the needed money for their campaign, but with set restriction. Indeed it seems as if the richest candidates are always guaranteed to win, unfortunatly even those without money should be given a fair chance for a successful campaign. In addition to having limits on what a candidate can receive from individuals, I also believe that they must disclose where they receive …show more content…
Next, the ACS group is coordinated with over a million contributions to federal candidates and a little over million from individuals who contributed 200 dollars or more to the campaign. In addition to, American Crystal Sugar supports both house representatives for Republican Party and Democratic, however they contributed more to the Republican Party thus far. Not only do they contribute money to the house but also to several individuals of the senate and one presidential candidate for the Republican Party, Marco Rubio. For the most part, contributions provided by PAC are beneficial and indeed help with the spending’s of candidates running for election. In addition to, with all the coordinated contributions from smaller groups or individuals citizens insures a sufficient way of raising money without the company having to foot the entire contribution0