Should Campaign Funding be Limited?

The problem of financing the campaign has been discussed for a long time. Election offices, especially high-level offices are not cheap. Candidates need to spend a lot of money on recruiting employees, borrowing office space, purchasing ads, etc. Where did the money come from? Since Congress has been banned since 1907, it can not officially come from the company or the National Bank. Therefore, if candidates are not rich, funds must be donations from individuals, party committees, and PAC.

This is a problem limiting campaign spending. Should candidates receive public funds, should their campaigns be subject to expenditure restrictions? Using the opposition resource center, I found a newspaper article by former presidential candidate Lamer Alexander. And he believes expenditure restrictions should not be ruled out. "Open the system, let the candidate talk, then let us vote," he said (1). He believes that due to expenditure restrictions, we believe we can become rich only by rich people, that is why we first create expenditure restrictions. Due to current limitations, only candidates receiving government funds are subject to expenditure restrictions. Candidates who do not accept government funds may spend as much as needed and create unfair advantages. Alexander also believes that the restriction on how much individuals can donate to candidates should be eliminated.

This white paper introduces a model that incorporates three key arguments to support and oppose campaign expenditure restrictions. Campaign expenditure restrictions are designed to limit the incumbent's ability to take advantage of its funding. Contrary to traditional wisdom, regardless of the relative funding capacity of the candidate, the ceiling will increase the likelihood of incumbent success unless the challenger is more effective in campaign spending. If the challenger is more effective in campaign spending, the ceiling has a monotonic effect when the incumbent enjoys the advantage of moderate primary voter disposition, a discreet upper limit reduces the probability of success of the incumbent It contributes to the incumbent who further limits this limit. Regardless of employment situation, the marginal profit of quality decreases with the upper limit of the upper limit. In open-seat competition, more restrictive restrictions will improve the election prospects for excellent candidates