This post is going up a little later than I intended. I got caught up in the latest news story about McCain suspending his campaign to address the economic crisis, and then I was fortunate enough to catch Obama's response. This election just keeps getting more fascinating by the day! I really hope that the debates continue as scheduled -- I'm so looking forward to watching them on Friday.
Back to topic.
Just as the primaries aimed to take the elections out of the hands of party bosses and into the hands of the general public, campaign finance reform seeks to reduce the influence of wealthy individuals and corporations and thereby motivate the general public to fund their candidate's campaign. Unfortunately, there's no sure way to keep party bosses out of the general election, and there will always be loopholes allowing wealthy individuals to funnel their money into a campaign. While the McCain-Feingold act may have "banned the national parties, congressional committees, and federal officeholders from raising and spending soft money," it left opportunities for the wealthy to fund 527 groups independent of certain campaigns. This is what happened to the Kerry campaign back in 2004, when the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" bombarded the airwaves with their "issue advocacy ads," and it will continue to happen, since those Swift Boat ads were such a pivotal part of Kerry's defeat.
I think that these reformations of both campaign finance and primaries do have their merits. The primaries add an element of unpredictability to the elections, and since they're done on a state level, more attention gets paid to the voters' opinions. As stated in the textbook, "Presidential primaries, because they tap into voters' preferences in a more direct fashion than caucuses and involve a much larger sector of the electorate, present a particularly good opportunity for testing candidates, policies, and issues in a variety of states." Obviously, the greatest merit to the primary system is its direct correlation with the heart of democracy: the power of the people.
On the flip side, the book also suggests that, perhaps, the people aren't always the best judges of leadership ability. "Whether the new system produces better presidential candidates (or better presidents) than those previously chosen in smoke-filled rooms is another matter."
In the matter of campaign finances, I think it's impossible to imagine reform that completely eliminates partisanship. I think there will always be loopholes like the ones found in the McCain-Feingold act. Based on the loopholes, that even supposedly non-partisan 527 groups can release ads and influence the election, I don't believe that partisanship will ever be fully purged from the elections. Because factions are an inevitability of a democratic system, it's downright laughable to think that America can hold an election without the influence of parties.
And I also think it's unfortunate that money plays such a huge role in campaigning when it's position issues that should take center stage. Third party candidates will never get the recognition or the voice they deserve because of their inability to find campaign donations -- they'll most likely never accrue a large enough following to match the funds raised by the republicans and democrats.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
The debates will happen as scheduled. Not only has Obama's campaign already respun this in their favor (multitasking), congress has declined McCain's 'help', citing that he hasn't been involved in the process the entire time so why would they delay for him?
An interesting side note, the University that the debate is scheduled to occur at (Ole Miss) has said that delay or canceling would be 'financially devastating' and that for that reason 'postponement may not be possible'.
Yet another interesting note: McCain/Palin wanted to delay the first two debates, including the first VP debate. Unsurprising, considering how they are limiting press access to Palin, and this might be the actual agenda behind the delay attempt.
I did see that, and I'm glad Obama took the stance he did. I would've been seriously upset if he had agreed to postpone the debates. But I'm interested to see if McCain will follow through on his word to ditch the debates if the bailout package isn't approved. Would just Obama sit on stage and answer questions?
But I didn't hear the response from the University. I read that they were willing to shift the debate to the economy, but I didn't know they were so financially tied to the debates.
And yeah, that's the first thing that popped into my head when the story broke. He can't hide Palin forever! :D
Post a Comment