Should there be a limit to the amount of money a candidate can receive from a donor?

No

There should be no limits on individual donations not made through a PAC or public funds, but there should be a limit on PAC/corporate donations

All current regulations hurt all alternatives to the Democratic and Republican Party candidates. The limits the D/R politicians impose on themselves are routinely violated by them, in fact; but are vigorously enforced against people like me. You really should look into this yourself.

Yes, politicians should not be bought by wealthy donors Yes, and ban all political donations and publicly fund elections

people should not be limited. corporations should. people are citizens with constitutional (first amendment) rights. corporations are not.

Yes, and any pay-to-play candidates should be disqualified and any pay-to-play donors fined or jailed.

Donors should be only perceived by grassroots sources and sources that are entirely democratic and people oriented

Yes, but make it so all donations are completely anonymous to everyone even the person receiving the donation so the money cannot influence someone in the government's decision making.

No, this is a violation of free speech as long as all donations are public knowledge

Elimination of corporate donations and a limitation to how much individuals may donate. Ban PAC'S.

Yes, but not receive donations from lobbyists.

No, But fine them (something hefty) for paying for votes or celebrity (or non political) endorsements

They should be limited by the the organization from where it's coming from. No collations, no unions, no corporations. They should only be receiving money from private citizens.

Yes, there should be a limit, but only on main party candidates. Third party candidates should at least have a higher limit than main party candidates, if they were to have a limit at all

Yes, and all political donations should have to be distributed among all candidates for that position to be fair.

yes, and the candidates' financial records should be wholly (save for private info such as SSN) transparent as they are running, and their financial history should become public if they win and remain open for some time after

No, but siphon a percentage of any individual donation into a public fund available for all declared public candidates pursuing that office.

Yes. I think individuals should be able to make one-time donations with a cap that decreases the higher the income tax bracket. The higher the income bracket, the lower the donation you can make compared to those in lower income brackets. Also, in addition, NO business or SuperPacs should ever be allowed to make donations or campaign contributions. All donations should be legally disclosed (without identifying individuals' names).

Yes, limit the donation amount from individuals and corporations, eliminate PACs and other funding vehicles, and make all contributions publicly accessible transparent information.

Yes. Super PACs like AIPAC or people like Elon Musk are the absolute worst. We should not be buying our politicians.

No, but as long as all donations are public and the politician does not show any favor to his or her donor

Yes. After our politicians were bought by people like Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Citizens United, and AIPAC, we need to put a cap on political donations. I'd say $5,000 is a good number. Basically, end super PACs.

Yes, we should also ban all PACs and lobbyist groups from donating. Only donations from individuals should be allowed.

Yes, total campaign spending should be capped, corporate donations should be limited and public knowledge, total donation amounts for individuals over certain amounts should be public knowledge, and all donation information should be in a standardized form, easily accessible to constituents at all time during the campaign, and for a time following the campaign that is no less than the maximum combined term lengths for the position.

All campaign donations should be taxed at 25%. Any campaign funds remaining at the end of the election cycle should be forfeited to the Federal Government. All campaign war chests must be zero'd out within 7 days of concession or certification of the results.

This is a long-standing debate in American politics, with arguments on both sides regarding its necessity, legality, and potential effects. Federal law currently imposes limits on the amount of money a donor can give directly to a candidate's campaign, but court rulings have significantly altered the landscape of campaign finance regulations in recent decades.
Arguments for limiting donor contributions
Preventing corruption: Proponents argue that large contributions can lead to "quid pro quo" corruption or the appearance of corruption, where donors receive favorable treatment…  Read more or policy outcomes in exchange for their money. Limiting donations would reduce this risk.
Promoting equality: Restricting large contributions could level the playing field, preventing wealthy individuals and large organizations from having a disproportionate influence on elections compared to average voters.
Encouraging broad-based support: Contribution limits may force candidates to build coalitions and seek support from a wider range of the public, rather than relying on a small number of big donors.
Building public trust: When the public perceives that special interests control the political process, it can erode faith in democratic institutions. Limits can help restore trust by reducing the perceived influence of money.
Arguments against limiting donor contributions
Freedom of speech: Opponents of limits, including the Supreme Court in landmark cases like Buckley v. Valeo (1976), argue that giving money to a political campaign is a form of political speech protected by the First Amendment. They contend that restricting contributions infringes on this right.
Protecting challenges to incumbents: Some argue that contribution limits can hinder challengers who need to raise significant funds to compete against well-known incumbents. Restrictions on fundraising can make it harder for new candidates to get their message out.
Insufficient evidence of corruption: The Supreme Court has expressed skepticism that large, but not unlimited

Individuals who are registered voters should be able up to a set limit to Contribute to politicians who appear on their ballot. No Non Person Contributions.

Yes, and have politicians wear the logos of everyone funding them on their suit like sport sponsors.

Yes, update limits to $500 to federal candidates, $750 to PACs, $1000 to State or Local committees, and $1500 to a national party per election cycle. Ban Super PACs

YES... there should be a limit to the amount of money a candidate can receive from a donor. Limits uphold justice, integrity, democratic equality, and relational trust in the system.

A bit of both, politicians should not be bought by wealthy donors and should have a limit, but we also have to make all donations public knowledge.

I don’t think politicians should be able to be controlled by wealthy donors, but I don’t think it’s fair to limit what people can do with their money in that regard, but I think it should be regulated and all donations should be recorded and released to the public

The whole campaign finance system is absurdly overpriced and wastes public resources. No candidate should receive taxpayer funding or special breaks — let them earn votes and grassroots support instead. If they can’t win based on ideas and votes alone, they don’t deserve to lead.

No, but politician should have to wear a NASCAR style suit with the names of all their donors and sponsors displayed prominently

Politicians should not be bought by wealthy donors. We need abolish Citizens United, and move to publicly funded elections with the same budget to send per each candidate.

Candidates and Elected Officials should not accept money from corporate PACs and the public matching system gives our tax dollars away instead of prioritizing our public services

Yes, because a large obstacle for independent political parties is that of funding. Implementation of a limit would allow more competition.

Yes, that limit should be $0 unless that candidate is not accepting any tax-payer funding by way of participating in publicly funded party primaries, receiving government-paid security, etc.

Politicians should not be able to be given money by anyone, their campaigns should be able to receive an infinite amount of money from anyone, however it should be publicly available what they spend that money on.

No, for the sake of democracy, the constitution, the 1st amendment(Free speech), federalism, weak government, and checks and balances.

No, for the sake of democracy, freedom, federalism, weak government, checks and balances, the constitution, and the 1st amendment(Free speech).

I don't think there should be an exact amount of money, because the donor is making their own decision to give their money to that candidate, but if it will be used to do harm, then it's not okay.

Yes, but only if dark money is abolished and donations fully transparent so not to circumvent the rules

Yes, and all political donations and funding from any source ought to be collected into a single account then split equivalently across the political parties concerned.

Yes, and corporations should not be allowed to donate to politicians. Representatives should not be able to be bought by the wealthy, business interests, or foreign governments.

No, we need to protect our beloved Constitution, the republic, democracy, freedom, weak central government, federalism, checks and balances, capitalism, the 1st Amendment/Freedom of Speech and combat censorship

They can get as much money as they want, as long it doesn't affect politicians in terms of being bought.

For state and local elections, donations should be limited to the state level, no out of state donations. For federal, only donations from private citizens, no PACS.

I think this might make a canadate more prone to aligning with the beliefs of that person giving them money. Politics is crooked and people use their money for influence. It's expensive to campaign though so maybe funding from somewhere would help but not an individual

Yes, Bribery is illegal lobbying should be too. If a candidate or a person in office is found to be bribed or given excessive amounts of money something should be done.

Yes, as donations can be used as a form of political bribery to manipulate the government to solely benefit the rich, such as CEOs and the nobility.

Yes, all political donations must be limited to $10,000 per year and only from U.S. citizens only as a natural person (personal checking account) no donations from any legal person(s) (companies) or super PAC's or their party will be allowed. For every 1 dollar in donations to the government will match $5 USD to cover the losses.

They need to add a system that will allow candidate to get money from donners but it should be required to give a detailed list of where how and what the money was spent on plus if the candidate doesn't use all the money it should be immediately foffitide to a non-profit carrtiy

Yes limit donations, full visibility, and cap spending allowed for that candidate determined by office / position

There should be upper limits per donation per election cycle. All donations of any value must be recorded in a public block-chain ledger. No anonymous donations of any kind.

no just as long as it is for trump if for kamalalalalallalalalalala aluakbar alalalala then deport them

there should be a limit to what you can personally give the candidate, but not limit to how much they can give to PAC’s

No, as long as all donations are public knowledge with only individuals being able to donate. No business or corporate donations should ever be allowed.

Yes. All donations or gifts must be documented and evaluated by federal agencies. If a donation is deemed unethical, criminal, etc., of course it should be cancelled and the donator dealt with appropriately. Corruption in our society needs to be strongly addressed.

No, as long as all donations are public knowledge for EACH INDIVIDUAL! PAC donations should not be protected under First amendment.

If a donor is going to donate money, it should not be for a certain individual in order to make it fair for all potential candidates.

Yes, and give out democracy dollars at a rate of 70% of the previous two elections, adjusted for inflation. Any unused dollars will be returned to the federal government.

Any Candidate's source of income should be from them and their Orthodox supporters alone. Any outside influence and institution should be disbarred from influencing a Candidates and their associates private agenda.

Ban all donations unless they are split equally to running people. They would only get that money once have to use it to run everything.

Donations to candidates should be limited and done through the IRS on tax forms and given to the candidate the tax payer chooses. PACs should be abolished and Corporations should not be allowed to donate. Period. If the corporate officers want to donate, it's through their tax forms like everybody else, as a individual tax payer, not a corporation.

No. But serious inquiries should be pondered upon said donors and the amounts. Also ethically speaking, our country is in a state where those resources could and should be used for better purposes other than political campaigns and propaganda, or whatever else. With that being said, why would a proposed candidate be spending time and effort in that department rather than saving the money for other purposes that the donors don't get a say on but have to agree with ultimately because they are donating to the candidate they believe in and not scheming to buy for political gain for themselves. Serious investigation much be brought forward to ensure this and should be brought forward to ensure this.

Yes, with a lower limit, more people will need to be on board for the campaign rather than just a choices made by the most wealthy.

All campaigns should be publicly funded and each candidate should get the same amount of public funds to campaign with.

No, as long as they are from a single donor, not a corporation, and all donations become public knowledge

1,000 per individual a month. No more pacs and no more corporation power. The owner amd ceo of a corporation can only give 1,000 a month

It depends on who the donor is (especially if it's from separate countries) as well as what the money received will be used for. In short, the money given shouldn't just be used for the president and/or a small group of people to exploit.

Yes, donations should only be allowed to parties. No candidate should receive direct funding from donors.

No, but all donations should go to an equal access fund that splits donations evenly between major candidates.

Yes. Just as one citizen can only cast one vote each per election, each citizen should have a maximum donation of $1000 in each election.

no, but change laws related to lobbying to make it more difficult to donate huge quantities legally.

So long as it is public information on who gave the donation, how much the donation was, and the purpose of the donation.

No, but it should be public knowledge if you have donated more than 10% of what has been donated to the campaign already.

Yes, there should be a limit on the amount donated. No PACs, constituents only. This ensures that wealthy donors do not rig elections with $$.

For local elections limit the amount. For national elections each candidate given a set amount of money and they can not use more and a limited campaign time.

Yes, and PACs along with super PACS should be listed as breakdowns of every organization who funds them on politician donation lists

No, but make it so all donations are completely anonymous to everyone even the person receiving the donation so the money cannot influence someone in the government's decision making.

Yes, politicians should not be bought by wealthy donors OR corporate elites; the cap should be 200,000 monthly.

Wealthy and powerful individuals should not be allowed to fund a campaign for a candidate, and especially not if they are foreigners or have ties to a foreign adversary.

Yes, all donations should be banned and elections should be publicly funded with an equal spending cap for each candidate

Yes, and ban most political donations and make every donation fully public. Also integrate a basic public funding program for every politician in need.

No, as long as all donations are public knowledge, none are collectively from any type of business, and the terms of such donation are revealed, do no imply any sort of lobbying.

Yes, and it is the government's responsibility to set limits on this issue. Politicians should not be bought by wealthy donors.

NGO PACs, not corporations, are buying elections. “Wealthy donors” is typically labeled as corporations and this is not true.

Yes, but a representative system is flawed at a core level, and should be abolished in favor of a direct democratic system.