3.02.07: 2Regular Guys – D-Day: Winning America’s Choosing Day
D-Day, June 6, 1944, is a day we will always remember. On this day the Allied forces regained a foothold on the beaches of Normandy. The Axis would now face a multi-front war. We sensed victory ahead.
Another critical day in our calendar is Election Day. There is something special about an election day. It is democracy’s distinctive day. Our choosing day sets us apart. Yet for any successful victory, it is the campaign before that determines the outcome.
Today the 2Regular Guys will be discussing the dos and don’ts of the modern campaign. Seeing that the 2008 election cycle is already in full gear this is a timely discussion. In fact, today’s modern campaign has no starting point because there is no ending point.
If you were a campaign manager, what priorities would you have in trying to get your client elected?
D-Day: Winning America’s Choosing Day.
Subscribe to our podcasts in iTunes.
CitizenU is taking an extended weekend. We will see you again on Tuesday March 6. Thanks for helping us build a community of citizens, one blog at a time. . . or should we say . . . just in time.
posted by CitizenU @ 10:19 AM
4 comments
4 Comments:
Personally, i find the Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2002 a violation of one's first amendment rights of free speech. By putting limitations on how much an individual can contribute to a candidate's campaign, isn't this restricting the equal opportunity of resources that this individual has? Also, for those who do contribute,it is important that their voice and support for a candidate is heard because then this would result in more voter participation in elections, hopefully increasing internal and external efficacy. Yes,I know that the government passed such laws to eliminate the perception of corruption (of money), but then why do 527s exist? Whether or not the government puts limits on private monetary donations, I strongly believe that individuals will find some "loophole" out and slowly corrupt the political campaign. The idealism that these laws are trying to achieve is short of possible because some way or another, political campaigns will never be "fair" between candidates.
How can voter participation increase based on the support of the wealthy who are donating most of the money? Without limitations, politics becomes an elitist group, excluding the average citizen who cannot possibly donate as much money as the wealthy. More money creates more focus on the candidate's physical appearance through advertisements rather than the actual issues being discussed. Campaigns are now debates on who presents a better visual image to the public. Will substantial issues and policies ever factor into the average citizen's view of a candidate instead of how they look on stage?
Politics is already about representing the elite groups within our country. There is barely any representation of the John Q. Public, and because of this, we have to think about whether setting certain limitations on the amount of money people can donate to political parties really will make much of a difference in the type of representation provided. It is obvious that our politics is controlled by the elite, and so even though they can only donate a maximum amount of money to stay within the amount regular people can donate, still no difference can be seen in the type of representation within this country. There is really no purpose in limiting the amount of money that can be donated to political parties because it is really difficult to bring about a change in the way things are already running. On the other hand, if candidates recieved more money from certain doners, they could make themselves more readily available to the public, and be able to better see what needs to really be changed within the country.
~Azra Bhimani
Although, the above points are extremely valid, I have to disagree. In my opinion, the placement of limitations on campaign funding levels the playing field for all candidates. As Meejin said, it is unlikely that campaigns will ever be perfectly fair, but shouldn't we try? Are Americans supposed to turn their backs on the uneven distribution of funding? Our elections must be focused more on the individual themselves than how well they can “spice” up their campaign. If we don’t take action, where will this government be in the future? The people running it may not even be the most qualitfied, it'll be those who can arrange the most funding- that’s comforting.
Post a Comment
<< Home