Would a cap on campaign budgets be a good idea?

[DetlefK]

Let's say, every candidate gets to spend $10 Million tops, or $20 Million or whatever. (If he manages to get that much on donations.) That sure should be enough.
Of every dollar above that threshold, 90% are deducted and donated to charity organizations.

And no other entities except campaign committees are allowed to field political ads endorsing or attacking candidates.
That way freedom of speech is left intact and you can still air ads about political topics other than candidates. But at least it would be more difficult for non-campaign-entities to secretly support a specific candidate.

I think, these two rules would have the following effects:
* The influence of money in campaigns would be limited.
* Campaign ads would be more about ideas and less about people.



Would such a cap have rather positive or rather negative effects?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

1. POSITIVE! YES! That's what needs to be done. But how do we get this accomplished? nt

[Richardo]

2. Fuck yes. $200.

Print up some flyers on optic green paper and that's it.

[TreasonousBastard]

3. Can't do it-- the Supreme Court has said no limit on spending...

ergo no limit on campaign funds.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

4. Caps Aren't Fair Because Incumbents Have Built In Advantages

.

[shraby]

5. It shouldn't take that much money for a representative

to campaign in their own districts which is a portion of a state. A senator only has to campaign in his own state..the whole state so it would take more money.
The only candidates who have to do a whole country campaign would be for the president which would take a load of cash.
Let's be real on the amount of money to campaign..it should be in proportion to the area he/she has to cover.