[flaja]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Rather than limit the amount that can be donated, perhaps it would be useful to limit what can be spent on an election campaign. If a sensible spending limit is set, then it removes much of the impetus for political parties to rely so heavily on large-scale donations.

What would the limit be? How would it be set? What would you do about the relative costs of running for the same office in different places? It doesn’t cost as much to air a TV ad where I live as it would in places like New York City. Would candidates in both places be limited to spending the same amount?

And again, how does money lead to the partisan nature of American politics? Ron Paul didn’t have nearly as much money to spend as John McCain or Barak Obama, but is Ron Paul any less partisan as a consequence?

It would, in my opinion, damage debate if politicians were having to second guess themselves and watch out for whatever makes them vulnerable to litigation during those debates.

But isn’t there a time when debate has to give way to either compromise or civil war?

I also think that removing that immunity, far from reducing the partisan elements of politics would actually make it more partisan. The potential for libel suits to become a common weapon in politics is something to be wary of.

But wouldn’t libel judgments make politicians think twice before they toss out any rhetorical bombs? If politicians knew that they could be sued into bankruptcy for telling lies and half-truths about their opponents, wouldn’t they go out of their way to avoid telling lies and half-truths?

BTW: I was once told on another board that British politicians in Parliament don’t libel one another because dueling is essentially still legal for politicians.