Why does the DNC not impose a primary spending limit?

[jmp]

If the DNC is worried about giving less well financed candidates a shot to "advance" on to later primaries ... why not impose a spending limit for the primary instead of relegating every state other than Iowa, NH, SC & Nevada to second class status?

[murbley40]

1. That sounds like a good idea.

[Benhurst]

2. Good idea. This primary season it has REALLY gotten out of hand.

[murbley40]

3. kick

:kick:

[jmp]

4. I'm a bit surprised that this didn't draw more interest.

Everyone is always talking about getting money out of politics, and this is something the DNC could do unilaterally. And it would eliminate the possibility of second tier candidates simply getting outspent and drown out in larger states.

That should remove any "need" for smaller states to hold their primaries earlier than the rest of us.

[dflprincess]

5. It's a good idea

but I don't think the DNC has the authority to do this.

[jmp]

7. The DNC can tell states when they can hold primaries ...

But can't impose spending limits its candidates?

That's not computing for me.

[dflprincess]

8. The DNC isn't so much telling states when to hold primaries and caucuses

as much as it's telling the state parties not to move the dates up. I imagine that if the party vigorously oppoesed any attempt to move their date up all would be forgiven if the state legislature did it anyway - especially in states where the legislature is controlled by Republicans or a Republican governor does it be executive order.

Given that the Supreme Court has decided that campaign contributions are free speech, it would no doubt decide how much a candidate spends is the candidates business. If the DNC tried to impose a limit it could end up in a court fight that I'd bet the DNC would lose.

[jmp]

9. How would that not fall under the same ...

"They agreed to the rules" argument that is getting applied to the state parties now? If a candidate doesn't want to abide by a DNC imposed spending limit, s/he can campaign as an independent or for some other party's nomination.

[wyldwolf]

6. because that ain't there job nor do they have the authority to do so.

[killbotfactory]

10. It would be a good idea

but it shouldn't be imposed after everybody agrees to the rules.

[cali]

11. They can't

It would immediately be challenged and thrown out. Period.