They can still have complete freedom of speach and say what you want aboutthe issues and each other, but limit the time they have to do it that's all, do not change anything justthe timeframes they can do in it, if you limit the moneyyhey have to advettise NOBODY has an advantage over the other and the can campaign for once on the issues and not worry about the money ect. each person still has the same amounto f money and time only it is limited
I think you could consider it more a limitation on how much they are permitted to spend on the media, such as commercials and the like. If all sides are treated equally I don't believe there would be any violation of first amendment rights. They can still say what they want on the stump, at meetings, at rallies, etc. They would still get news coverage, provided that coverage is equal and unbiased. Just limit their paid commercial time.
And I like the idea that all candidates are funded equally, from a public fund set up for that with voluntary donations. All donations made to a joint fund, not to a particular party. That might make it even more likely that the candidate with the best platform will be elected, not the one with the best funding.
Of course, this is all fantasy. About as likely to happen as the moon falling down. Oh, well. It's a nice dream, anyway.
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
But I'm not limiting their free speech. I'm only limiting their access to a method of disseminating that speech. Any person in this country is, theoretically, allowed to say pretty much what he wants to say. He is not permitted to go around with a bull horn all day and night spouting off his beliefs. That impinges on other's rights to peace and quiet. The same principle applies her, I believe.
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
There's a significant difference between a bullhorn and television air time. You would be saying that I, as a candidate, could not spend my own money to by advertising time and deliver my message. Just as McCain-Feingold limits when I, as an individual, can spend my money to express my personal view on the election. Both are wrong and should not be allowed.
Once you start the limiting, it may sound simple, but it becomes very complex. Who's limited and when and how? Public funds -- if only public funds can be used, then who qualifies to get them? It's dangerous territory, because freedoms are lost in little steps.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)