Are campaign contribution limits effective?

[Radical Activist]

This is a question beyond the Presidential race.

Contribution limits to campaigns were supposed to stop candidates from being beholden to major donors. I'm not sure it helps though.

A candidate whose support is mainly among the poor can still fund their campaign with support from a few very wealthy people if there are no contribution limits. Even a candidate with a working class agenda can find a few wealthy benefactors to give large amounts. That's what Jimmy Carter did for most of his career.

That doesn't work with contribution limits. Instead of being beholden to a few people you have to depend on a larger number of people who can afford to give over $1,000. Instead of owing one banker, a candidate know owes the entire banking industry. The same with the insurance industry, the credit card industry, lawyers and so on.

A candidate with an agenda that appeals to the working class has no chance because they have to tailor their message to the majority of potential donors. The limits are making politicians even more dependent on wealthy special interests, which is the opposite of what they were supposed to do.

[alarimer]

1. with pure public financing it would work.

And free advertising for all candidates.

[Radical Activist]

2. Do you want to pay another $1 Billion in taxes to fund that?

Forcing broadcasters to give free advertising on public airwaves makes more sense to me. That's where the biggest expense for campaigns comes from.

[alarimer]

3. It is worth it if it removes corporate influence

I don't see any other way to do that but fully fund campaigns with public funds. And do something about excessive lobbying, such as a rule that legislation cannot actually be written by corporations.