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 o...