Political campaigns in the United States are costly, considering the long months a candidate has to spend for a seat in office. With the involvement of money in politics, campaign fundraising has been an ongoing issue for decades now. And with the campaign finance reform in the center of a debate for almost two decades, different views are expressed by supporters and critics on these changes.
List of Pros of Campaign Finance Reform
1. It gives candidates an even playing field.
With the reformers recommending voluntary limits on spending money in exchange for rate reduction campaign-related expenses like mailing and television time as well as the regulation of contributions to political parties can give candidates who do not have enough resources to have a chance to win according to his or her merits and qualifications. Advocates also say that this development will give way to new politicians, making the arena of politics more competitive.
2. It can lessen corruption in government.
Advocates of the reform are concerned about campaign money coming from special interest which can influence the candidates once they are elected. With changing the current system, politicians will be able to do their jobs out of service and not out of indebtedness to rich political supporters or donors.
3. It results to transparency in relation to campaign fund sources.
Supporters of the reform claim that with this, there will be disclosure on who are funding the campaigns of would-be politicians. This way, there will be transparency, thus lessening the risk of having election donors with vested interest. Contributions will be made without expecting favors from their supported candidates in the future.
4. Incumbent politicians can do their jobs better.
With campaign finance reform, politicians running for re-election will not be spending more time doing work instead of having to raise funds for their bid to be in Congress or the Senate.
List of Cons of Campaign Finance Reform
1. In relation to special interests, politicians can be influenced elsewhere.
Opponents of the reform refute the statement of supporters that with the reform, giving favors to special interests will be unlikely. They argue that a candidate’s decision on issues can be influenced by pressure from the political party and one’s personal view and not necessarily from supporters who have contributed money to the campaign.
2. It actually limits the freedom of speech.
While proponents say that the reform can give candidates who do not have the machinery to spend for large campaign the voice, opponents contend that regulations on radio and TV advertising during the campaign period is what limits this freedom.
3. The fundamental issue is not the money in politics but the lack of participation from the voting public.
Critics are not in favor of regulating the amount of spending money during campaigns saying the issue is not about money but the small number of Americans voicing out their views on the political system in the US. They suggest that the public should be given incentives to encourage them to have a voice on who they want elected.
Conclusion
Whether the reform will have more benefits than setbacks is a question that remains to be answered in the coming months or years. What’s more important here is for the people to know what kind of leaders they want to run the country and be vocal about their views.