The Debate Over Campaign Finance Regulations

Money is human nectar and it is also a human poison. This fact was not applicable as in modern politics. Nearly all the candidate's assets in a political position such as media advertisement, travel expenses, campaign supplies, etc. depend on financial support. In the era of superiority in electronic media money has become more important than ever. Today, for political activities, we need to invest a lot of money in television, the Internet, radio, print advertisement to carry out competitive activities.

In studying the influence of the Election Finance Law on the election of the United States and the political life of the United States, the election campaign for fiscal regulation ends the political challenge, strengthens the political system, suppresses grassroots political activities, politics It is possible to artificially restrict the discussion and the opinions of the discussion. Being profitable for wealthy and powerful people, ultimately distortion by listening to political processes incompatible with the first amendment. In short, financial regulation of the campaign is undemocratic.

Campaign finance raises fundamental ethical issues for democracy. In most cases, the discussion on campaign funds will be developed around the two potentially contradictory principles of democracy: protection of freedom of expression and prevention of corruption. On the one hand, court factions often believe that financial participation (by donation or expenditure) on campaigning is a form of political expression that must be protected constitutively from censorship. On the other hand, it is widely thought that rules and restrictions can be set reasonably for campaign funds to prevent corruption.

In order to solve the current discussion on the standardization method of the campaign finance system, there is a tendency to treat each reform proposal as being separated. In this short article we will explore how democratic theories related to aggregate preferences can be adjusted through some stubborn assumptions that can guide our thoughts on empirical observation and discrete reform proposals . The unintended consequences of regulating the financing of individual campaigns is the increase in funds for specific problems, which can impair the stability of democratic politics. The proper response to this true concern is not to regulate the problem but to regulate the private funds of the parties.

Madison's democracy and the advertisement of the issue: dissolution of the private party's political regime Paul S. Edwards