The Lonely Death of Public Campaign Financing

Eisenberg continues to reaffirm the Supreme Court's decision on financing for candidates; the ability for a candidate to make a donation is considered a legitimate advantage of the candidate (Esenberg, 2010). Limiting this ability will be for candidates who are not good at gathering donation. It is totally based on candidate communication and network elements. Reducing the power of candidates will make the media have a greater impact on public donation (Esenberg, 2010).

• Restrictions on expenditure and donation • Part of public funds for the judicial movement • Total public funds for the judicial movement • Prohibition of financing in unconditional elections • Activity requirements for financial reporting • Measures to promote public access to financial data. The expenditure limit and contribution maximum ceiling expenditure limit reduces the overall dependence on private equity funds without public funds. One way to mitigate the effect of campaign funds without investing in public funds is to set a donation limit for candidates who agree to limit the total expenditure. Normally, financial incentives are necessary to set an upper limit on expenditure. Yes, the public money of the judicial movement provides such incentives. The country may need to find ways to manage campaign expenditure for candidates or support groups who opt to opt out of public fund programs.

Public financing is the last aspect of campaign financing and should be reformed, although difficult. Public financing is the process by which the US government uses its individual funds and tax payer pocket to support its candidates and political parties. Immediately issue the same problem of funds. It is unfair to take money from Republican citizens and hand them over to the Democratic Party, but if that money is evenly distributed, this will no longer be a problem. In addition to obstacles in Congress (most of which can be easily compensated by loopholes), another big problem faced by public finance is the cynicism caused by public soft money. Citizens believe that the health of our democracy can not be fully recovered unless massive individual donations are removed from the political movement. People have long supported the public funds of the parliamentary election campaign, and their support is unwavering.

Many people believe that solutions for wasting money in politics are in public funding of campaigns. It is suggested that public funds eliminate the influence of so-called corruption, put candidates equally, and reduce the need for candidates to raise funds. In fact, it is impossible to accomplish these goals with public funds, and it itself has big problems. Most public fund proposals concern the limitation of private capital investment. The Supreme Court considers that Congress can not directly restrict the expenditure of candidates, but it may link income from public funds to arbitrary expenditure restrictions. However, if public funding activities are a substitute for expenditure limits, it will help incumbents fight challengers. This is because, as mentioned above, increasing spending is often more beneficial to the challenger than the incumbent.