Having tight regulations for campaign finances is the best way for running campaign finances. This is true in that it would reduce the corrupting role of unlimited contributions, reduce the effort required to raise funds, but unregulated campaign finances also have their benefits.Firm rules for campaign finances would reduce the corrupting role of unlimited contributions. This would be done by increasing individual contribution limits, so that it would reduce the time candidates spend raising money. Also, it would allow more small donors of money b ...view middle of the document...
This would cause the candidates to be more concerned with the issues than the money they have to raise. Also, this would give candidates opportunities to compete against rich adversary's funding their own campaigns. Likewise, it would make available indispensable responsibility of political campaigners to the electorate. Finally, it would help in reducing large donors in campaigns.However, it does seem that unregulated campaign finance also has its benefits. Such as, soft money would not be banned allowing there to be no corrupting, because it is between a candidate and their political party. Also, it would give challengers the ability to raise the money they need to build up a triumphant campaign. In addition, regulating campaign finances is like restricting the First Amendment for political parties and their candidates. Furthermore, political affairs and political campaigns belong to the people, and not the candidates or the national government.In conclusion, restricted campaign finances are very beneficial in that it diminishes the corrupting role of limitless donations, decrease the endeavor necessary to increase money for a campaign; however, a loose system for campaign finance also has benefits. Also, a restricted structure for campaign finance would make our political system healthier and better.
