Should we move to public financing of elections, or continue the system as it exists today?

Expert Answers

An illustration of the letter 'A' in a speech bubbles

I assume that you are talking about the United States.  If so, I would argue that we should not move to public financing.

I understand that public financing would seem fairer.  If candidates had only a certain amount to spend, the richer candidates would not have an advantage over those...

Unlock
This Answer Now

Start your 48-hour free trial to unlock this answer and thousands more. Enjoy eNotes ad-free and cancel anytime.

Start your 48-Hour Free Trial

I assume that you are talking about the United States.  If so, I would argue that we should not move to public financing.

I understand that public financing would seem fairer.  If candidates had only a certain amount to spend, the richer candidates would not have an advantage over those with less money.

However, I think that Americans do have the right to use their money to promote their political beliefs.  Therefore, I do not think the government ought to be able to limit how much money someone can spend on airing their political views.  If we allow people to spend as much as they like on this, there is no point in public financing because people would just get around these limits by making "issue" ads that are really for or against some candidate.

Approved by eNotes Editorial Team