Editorial

Limit spending on elections

Encourage best candidates not richest

Hillary Clinton raised $163.5 for her election campaign, according to The New York Times, and she has spent $77.6 million so far.

Many other candidates have also raised more than $50 million for their election campaigns.

We The Threefold Advocate believe money needs to be restricted in presidential campaigns. As a country we need the best president, not the one who can raise the most money.

In the 2012 elections, $7 billion were spent, according to Politico. This is too much for an election cycle. The good this money could do outside of the political arena would have a much more positive impact on the world.

If we were to limit the money spent on political campaigns, the election would be more  substantive and the money could go to places that may actually need it.

Numerous ads contribute to attacks on the opposing candidates. This is a large reason why many people do not like politics.

We The Threefold Advocate understand that some people may be against limiting money spent on the election. They believe that people should be able to give as much money to any candidate that they want because of freedom of speech and expressions.

However, in many cases they are really just paying for propaganda or commercials (according to NPR, $4.4 billion will be spent on commercials during the 2016 election), which the  government can legally limit the spending on.

Restricting the amount of money spent on elections gives more candidates the opportunity to enter. There may be a great future president out there who is being discouraged because of the cost of an election.

Also, a lot of the money spent on the elections can be given to super PACs which limits the accountability for the candidates because they are not directly associated with the organization.

Therefore, The Threefold Advocate urges students to support regulations on campaign money. This would encourage the best candidates not just the richest.