The question is about President Roosevelt's proposal. Can I get some help please? Thanks!
2 Answers
see below
Explanation:
This is an opinionated question.
In this, he says that it should be up to the federal government to supply the funds for a federal campaign and that candidates can only receive a fixed amount from other people.
However, this means an election that people run for would have to withdraw money from the treasury, in today's economy, that wouldn't work.
I see where some can support this though. This proposal gives running candidates equal footing in the race, especially if they don't have access to a lot of money.
However, I personally disagree with this since this doesn't take into account how many people would run for an election, and if all of them get a fixed amount, the treasury would be drained in a huge election.
yes this is an opinion based on the vast sums of money spent on the last election and the resulting influence of the donators of the money.
Explanation:
The problem is who will have the opportunity to run for election.
Under Roosevelt's proposal it is unclear how it would be decided who would be eligible for the tax payer provided funds. The government could become the arbitrator of who could run for government office. This creates the possibility of a self perpetuating tyranny.
Under the present system vast sums of money are spent ( wasted?) on elections. Wealthy donors, and special interest groups decide who gets the money in order to be able to run for political office. A person must have vast personal wealth and or the support of the special interest groups in order to fund a campaign. Often the person elected is more accountable to the people who donated the money than the people who elected the person.
There are problems with both systems, however I would choice Roosevelt's proposal over the present corrupt system. Laws could be written that mandated that a person running for election would have to show evidence of popular support in order to receive the government funds. This way the previously elected officials could not totally control who was able to run for office. The money spent on elections could be reduced to reasonable amounts.
