From this comment comes the quote:
on a practical level, if you suck as a politician THAT much that you can't raise a paltry $50k in a country with 300Mil population, you clearly don't have enough of a base to be worth invited to a debate
The context was that for a Republican primary debate, one requirement was to raise 500,000 US$ in 90 days. As a consequence, candidate Buddy Roemer did not get invited, despite meeting other requirements, such as polling at least 2% in opinion polls.
Personally, I have always considered financial barriers for participation in elections or electoral debates undemocratic. In some countries, such barriers are justified by administrative costs. Other arguments I've heard is to prevent a too large number of candidates to take part, but a requirement of presenting at a minimum number of signatures should sufficiently prevent that.
What arguments can be mode in favour of financial barriers for the participation of political candidates in elections or electoral debates?
(I could also ask what arguments can be made against, but I consider that a rather obvious question and can easily come up with several reasons myself)