2

As far as I'm aware, America doesn't put a cap on how much money you can spend on campaigning. This is unlike countries such as Britain (where the cap is £30,000 per constituency).

If the lack of a cap has no intention to it, why has it not been implemented? Otherwise, what's the intention?

7
  • 2
    It is intentional, since a cap on campaign spending would be a cap on political speech. The US system accepts the drawbacks to uphold this principle. – o.m. Oct 22 '20 at 18:55
  • Ah yes. Sorry, I was meant to imply that is an answer in and of itself – yolo Oct 22 '20 at 18:57
  • @o.m. Do you have anything to corroborate this? – yolo Oct 22 '20 at 18:58
  • No time to look for the links today, which is why this is a comment and not an answer. As an answer it would be insufficient. – o.m. Oct 22 '20 at 18:59
  • @o.m. I think you might be going a bit far with that. As JoeW pointed out, that "drawback" came from a 5-4 Supreme Court ruling. So, it's not like there was a debate or a democratic process behind it – divibisan Oct 22 '20 at 20:35
7

Because political spending has been ruled to be protected under the first amendment as free speech. Because of that unlimited spending is allowed.

Citizens United versus FEC

A 5-4 majority of the Supreme Court sided with Citizens United, ruling that corporations and other outside groups can spend unlimited money on elections.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .