Campaign Ethics

Since the title of this debate does not contain a debatable resolution, I looked to my opponent's opening round to find what was being debated. The claims that were made were that "Too much of this elections money was wasted on campaigns" and that "I feel that we need to reform our campaign ethics." Last round, I argued against these claims. Campaigns are not acting unethically - the overspending and overfinancing of campaigns is simply a flaw in the free market that should be corrected by regulations. There is nothing unethical about what's going on - it is not unethical to fund a candidate's campaign, nor is it unethical for a campaign to spend all the money it receives. It is simply an issue where regulation is needed to ensure maximum efficiency - this regulation is to fix a functional problem with the system, not an ethical one. Also, 100% of 'elections' money should be spent on election-related stuff. If this money was spent relieving some of our debt, it would no longer be 'elections' money. Therefore, the claim that "too much of our elections money is spent on campaigns" also seems to lack support. My opponent, like myself, has let you all know that there should be some changes in the way campaigns are funded. I agree, and I have given a plan that does just that: limit the amount of funds a campaign can receive, to the level that maximizes the effectiveness of the economy. My opponent has asserted many new things this second round, and I will reply to many of them below. RE: "For too many years now money has been taken from lobbyists to enhance campaign funds. This is wrong because in the end many candidates end up giving them special interest tax breaks. Special interests need to be eliminated and the public needs to know what is goin on behind the closed doors of the White House." That would eliminate almost every single source of campaign financing. Any entity, be it an organization or an individual, who finances a campaign because of ideologies or beliefs is necessarily a special interest. Special interests are what democracy is all about. Sure, there's plenty of anti-special-interest rhetoric out there. How ironic that the group that wants to abolish special interests is necessarily a special interest itself! The interest? Eliminating special interests. Unless my opponent plans on substantiating these claims against the very fabric of democracy - people and organizations supporting candidates who have their interests at heart - I urge you to ignore this empty rhetoric. RE: "We have been in the dark for too many years. It is time for us to know exactly what our money is being spent on and why." That is an interesting point, but it has nothing to do with campaigns or their ethics. We already know what campaigns spend their money on - campaigning. What my opponent is talking about is transparency on government spending. This is a policy issue wholly unrelated to campaigns. RE: "Until then we may never know the true reason of why the United States is it debt. Wasteful spending is out of control" I can tell you the true reason. Government, mostly on a federal level, usually spends more money than it makes. Surpluses are rare, and usually short-lived, where deficits are common. Though, I agree that transparency will help us pinpoint exactly what programs we can get rid of to create surpluses rather than deficits. However, this is completely unrelated to the issue of campaign ethics. Campaigns campaign - they're not the ones spending money we don't have, government officials are. RE: "It is time to change our ways and make way for a better tomorrow." I agree, but this is also unrelated. Based on arguments I've already made, campaigns are not unethical. Some of the regulations on campaigns, specifically on people giving money to them, should perhaps be strengthened. However, this debate is about whether campaigns are acting unethically by spending their money on campaigning rather than on other things, such as paying off some national debt. It is not a campaign's responsibility to pay off debt - that responsibility goes to the government and perhaps to the taxpayers whose wallets have been eased by public borrowing. Campaigns are not at fault for our country's debt, and so they are not obligated to pay it off.