The other side frames this as a simple choice: cap the money, or let corruption run wild. That gets both definitions wrong. Let me be clear what we're actually debating. A strict cap is a government limit on how much any citizen can give to a candidate they support. And a donation? It's speech. It's a citizen saying "I believe in this person" with more than just a vote. Once you set that framework, the flaw appears. Strict caps don't equalize anything. They entrench incumbents, who already have name recognition and free media coverage. They hurt challengers, who need early money just to introduce themselves to voters. And they don't stop the wealthy at all — a self-funder doesn't donate to a campaign, he just writes his own check. If the real concern is corruption, the answer is transparency and same-day disclosure. Strong enforcement attacks the quid pro quo problem directly. But capping a citizen's voice doesn't fix corruption — it just picks winners. Strict caps feel clean, but they're a blunt tool that makes the system less democratic, not more.

[No submission - Time expired]