A lengthy primary campaign gives candidates time to test each other on a whole range of issues. Voters, in turn, make their decisions based on a balance of candidates’ strengths and weaknesses. Voters can do this because they have had the time to get to know the candidates well, to become familiar with their policies and positions on various issues and to analyse their professional or political backgrounds.  Admittedly the experience of getting to know- and be known by- the country is an expensive one. However, Barack Obama’s reliance on small, personal donations demonstrates that this situation need not benefit any particular sectional interest.  Side opposition contend that Obama’s grass roots funding model provides a viable alternative to reliance on large donation from powerful donors. Moreover, it also serves to expand and foster public engagement in the political process.  There is also little reason to suspect that the resolution would do much to reduce expenditure on campaigns. Indeed, eliminating state-level campaigning may simply mean that candidates are forced to become more reliant on communications delivered via national media, which is both more expensive and provides fewer opportunities to address state-level issues.  Finally, it should also be noted that spending in primary campaigns is already subject to a significant external control. The need to fund a full presidential election campaign will always serve to limit and moderate candidate’s ambitions, and to impose a degree of equality between wealthier candidates and those who are more reliant on grass-roots support.