RE: Choice 1 Starting Questions
- Archived: Thu, 22 Mar 2001 12:44:00 -0500 (EST)
- Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2001 10:28:35 -0500 (EST)
- From: Jay Oliver <jaydeeo@aol.com>
- Subject: RE: Choice 1 Starting Questions
- X-topic: Choice 1
You asked: "How would reducing the amount of money given to and (this is key) spent by candidates in election campaigns make it "easier" for the monied to win or give "...'ordinary' candidates... an even stronger incentive... to exploit..."?"
Simple. Unlike the raising of funds (or the spending by groups), the Supreme Court decided years ago that an individual candidate's expenditure of his OWN personal money is absolutely protected free speech, and cannot be infringed.
Hence, the likes of newly "minted" (pardon the pun) Senator Corzine ($60 million) and in the recent past, Presidential-wannabes Perot and Forbes (who knows how many $$$) will have even larger advantages.
|
|
Date
|