Now this is perfect timing as we head into a Presidential Election. What if every presidential candidate had the exact same amount of money to spend on their campaign? Would elections be more fair? Would voters be better informed and less swayed by fancy advertisements and lobbying? Today, we're exploring the debate around a unique proposal for campaign financing.

Welcome to your Dinner Table Debates Daily Deep Dive, where we explore real topics from our decks and give you everything you need to debate, in under 10 minutes. Today's topic is "Every presidential candidate should be given an equal campaign fund and be disallowed any other campaign spending," and it comes from the US Law category in our Full Size Essentials Collection deck. Let's dig in.

The topic of campaign finance has been a contentious issue in politics for decades. In the United States, running for president can cost billions of dollars. Candidates often rely on donations from individuals, corporations, and political action committees (PACs). The current system allows for unlimited spending by outside groups, thanks to the 2010 Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which ruled that political spending is a form of protected speech under the First Amendment.

An equal campaign fund system, sometimes called "public financing," would provide all presidential candidates with the same amount of money, funded by taxpayers. This system would eliminate the need for private donations and the influence of wealthy donors, making the election process more equitable. But would it work? And is it the best way to ensure fair elections?

Campaign finance reform is a critical issue because it affects the integrity of democratic processes. The influence of money in politics can lead to unequal representation, where only those with substantial financial backing have a real chance of winning. Understanding this debate helps us evaluate how democratic our elections truly are and whether reforms could lead to more equal and representative outcomes.

Now, let's debate!

Agree: Every presidential candidate should be given an equal campaign fund and be disallowed any other campaign spending

1.Providing an equal campaign fund ensures that all candidates have the same resources, making elections fairer. It reduces the advantage that wealthy candidates or those with wealthy backers have. For instance, in countries like Canada, campaign spending is strictly regulated, and public funding is available, which helps create a more level playing field for all candidates.

2. With equal funding, candidates are less likely to be influenced by wealthy donors or special interest groups. This can reduce corruption and ensure that elected officials are more accountable to their voters rather than to their donors. As far back as 2013, Transparency.org’s Global Corruption Barometer (GCB) reported that 55% of citizens worldwide believed that their “governments [were] run by a few big interests looking out for themselves.” There have been numerous studies done by organizations like the World Bank and the Varieties of Democracy Research group that have shown that countries with strict campaign finance regulations tend to have lower levels of corruption.

3. When campaign funding is equal, candidates must rely on their ideas and policies to win over voters, not just their ability to raise money. This can lead to a more issue-focused campaign and a more informed electorate. For example, in some European countries, strict limits on campaign spending force candidates to engage more directly with voters and focus on policy discussions rather than on fundraising dinners and events for the wealthy and special interest groups.

Disagree: Every presidential candidate should not be given an equal campaign fund and be disallowed any other campaign spending

1. Limiting campaign spending is a violation of free speech rights. In the U.S., we often say “put your money where your mouth is” and we can see the Supreme Court agrees in its ruling that spending money on political campaigns is a form of free speech. Restricting how much can be spent might limit individuals’ and organizations’ ability to express their political preferences.

2.  Implementing an equal campaign fund system could be difficult. There would need to be strict rules and oversight to prevent candidates from finding loopholes or using other means to gain an advantage. How would we confirm who qualifies as a candidate for funding? Would that system have its own level of corruption? The cost of monitoring and enforcing such regulations could be substantial.

3. Not all campaigns are created equal. Some candidates might need more funds to reach voters in larger or more rural areas, while others might benefit from existing name recognition or media coverage. Think Ronald Reagan, Arnold Swartzenager or Donald Trump that already had strong media presences before running for public office. And think of all the legacy families that have been in the White House - two Bush presidents, two Roosevelts and a few Kennedy’s if you expand to the federal government as a whole. Equal funding does not account for these differences, potentially putting some candidates at a disadvantage which makes this proposal ineffective, so why implement it?

- Rebuttal to Agree Point 1 (Level Playing Field)  

  While an equal campaign fund might seem fair, it ignores the different needs of candidates. A one-size-fits-all approach may not work for every campaign. Candidates in larger states or with less name recognition might need more funds to effectively reach voters.

- Rebuttal to Disagree Point 1 (Free Speech Concerns)  

  Limiting campaign spending is not about restricting free speech but about ensuring that all voices are heard equally. The current system often drowns out smaller voices, giving an unfair advantage to those with more financial resources. Public financing ensures that elections are about ideas, not money.

The debate over whether every presidential candidate should be given an equal campaign fund and be disallowed any other campaign spending is a complex one, involving issues of fairness, free speech, corruption, and practical implementation. While some argue that equal funding creates a fairer, more issue-focused campaign environment, others raise concerns about free speech, practical challenges, and the diverse needs of different campaigns. It's a debate that requires careful consideration of the principles of democracy and the realities of political campaigning.

Campaign finance reform continues to be a hot topic in politics, with various proposals being discussed in legislatures around the world. In the U.S., some states and cities have experimented with public financing of campaigns, such as New York City’s matching funds program, which provides public funds to candidates who meet certain criteria. These efforts are being closely watched to see if they can be scaled to a national level.

Want to dig into this topic even more? Well, When you’re playing Dinner Table Debates at home, you can have Agree set the stage and choose how to define the debate. This means they can outline the terms, context, and interpretation, creating a unique and dynamic conversation every time. Here are some ways that Agree could redefine the debate topic “Every presidential candidate should be given an equal campaign fund and be disallowed any other campaign spending”:

1. Every presidential candidate should be given an equal campaign fund because the system is unfair: Would providing every presidential candidate with an equal campaign fund create a more level playing field, giving lesser-known or less wealthy candidates a fair shot? Could this approach reduce the influence of money in politics and help focus on candidates’ ideas and policies rather than their fundraising abilities?



2. Every presidential candidate should be given an equal campaign fund because money is not speech: Is limiting campaign spending really a violation of free speech? Is the freedom to spend money on political campaigns the same thing as freedom of expression? Is the best way for supporters to fully voice their opinions and advocate for their causes by spending money?



3. Every presidential candidate should be given an equal campaign fund to achieve a better democracy through enhanced Voter Engagement: Shouldn’t equalizing campaign funds encourage a wider variety of candidates to run, thereby enriching the democratic process with diverse perspectives? Or could such restrictions lead to less voter engagement, with campaigns being less able to reach and inspire voters due to limited resources?

If you enjoyed our deep dive, you can debate this topic and many others by getting your own Dinner Table Debates deck at DinnerTableDebates.com. It's a unique game because every round starts with randomly assigning agree or disagree, then you pick the topic, meaning that you might be debating for something you disagree with or vice versa. But that's the point! Stretch your brain, gain clarity, improve critical thinking and empathy, and have fun doing it! You can also join the debate on our Instagram and TikTok account. Get ready for some thought-provoking discussions that will challenge your assumptions and broaden your understanding of the world around you! Happy debating and remember, everyone is always welcome at the table.