Should Campaign Spending Be Limited?
The same day I was given the handout on the exploratory essay I happened to walk by a poster telling people to boycott Coke. At first, I thought it was just some naturalist upset that people would spend millions of dollars on drink that is bad for them. But, after closer inspection, I found the reason for the boycott was because Coke was a major sponsor of Bush's 2000 campaign, therefore supporting the war in Iraq. My first thought was how stupid it was to try to boycott Coke. I mean come on, Coke is the number one selling soft drink in several countries and there's no way you could get enough people to stop drinking it to actually effect their sales. Days went by and still I had not picked a topic. Once again I saw the poster asking people not to buy or drink Coke, but this time I took the time to read the whole thing.
Reading the poster for a second time did not change my view on boycotting Coke, but it did bring the vast amounts of money spent on campaigns to my attention, and this became my topic subject.
After doing some research, I decided to write about the limiting of campaign spending. As my research continued, I found a web site stating that in the 2000 presidential election Bush and Gore spent a combined total of three hundred and seventeen million dollars in the primaries alone! If you think about it, presidential candidates are spending more money to become president than they'll make being the president. Plus, the amount spent goes up each election. This year Bush is expected to spend two hundred million on the primaries (whitehouseforsale.org). My first thought when reading these facts was that...