Mystery Money

Politics is something that most people feel disconnected from. It is an entity of itself that sometimes feels untouchable and even unchangeable. Though our political system was designed, in theory, for the people to serve and communicate with its government, it has not always played out in such a way in practicum. This reality is one of the causes of a separation between the common people, the class system, and whom a president actually serves. Yes, I’m poetically beating around the bush: politicians serve those who have money.

Though this theory may not be completely true, it certainly feels like it. And it seems we always come down to the question “does money influence politics?”.  If we look in terms of presidential campaign fundraising, there are arguments that it could quite possibly be true. In a featured segment on the power of PAC’s,  The Dylan Ration Show discussed how politicians who run for presidency can gain control of their money, and create power and a voice through the amount of money they have to campaign with.  The segment lists figures on how much money presidential candidates spent for office. In 1976, candidates spent 67 million dollars. In 2008, the number skyrocketed to 1.3 Billion dollars.

You would think that with so much money being spent, the government would be able to cap off how much money a candidate can receive. Well, they can. In fact, in a case called “ Buckley vs. Valeo”, Congress determined that money equals voice, and they would only be able to limit contributions and not spending itself. The development of PAC (Political Action Committee) has changed the front of campaign finances. The individual group can give money to the candidate and party they chose, which will increase the money they have, which increases the volume of their voice on the campaign tour.

Allow me to clarify myself in terms of how I see Money = Speech. I think we can look at this formula as The amount of money= the volume of speech. In my perspective, the more money someone has on a campaign trail, the more resources they can unlimitedly spent on, allowing their image, message, and voice be heard in a much larger and more accessible way. For example- if a candidate A has 5 million, and candidate B has 20 million, candidate A has only 25% of the financial opportunities that B has. In this sense, money does equal speech.

This opens up problems on the campaign trail between candidates and the PAC, and other groups, that give them the ability (money) to eventually win an election. With money creating power, politicians may feel obligated to go against their morals and stances, and support issues that they don’t believe in, but will give them money to get into office. With government not being able to regulate mystery sourced money in the campaign financial system, politicians will continue to stay, seemingly, far away from an honest cause and service of the American people.

On Education Reform

After watching the Republican Primary Debate that took place on September 22, 2011 got me thinking about several different topics that were brought about in the debates. One struck me very much so because of the several different responses given by all the candidates. Ironically, it’s an issue that is almost looked over, though it is a serious topic: Education.

Some general comments made by some of the candidates were:

Johnson: “ [I] promise to advocate the abolishment of the Federal Department of Education.”

Rick Santorum: “[It is] the parent’s responsibility to educate their children.” He states that the government forces parents out of the picture when it comes to their children’s integration into the established school systems set by the government

Ron Paul: “If you care about your children you’ll get the Federal Government out of the business of educating our kids.” He brought up a point that I personally agree with- parents should have the option to say no the public school system. I will elaborate on my stance later in the blog.

Perry: Promotes “school choice”.

Romney: “Education has to be held at the local and state level, not at the Federal level.” He supports the idea that we need to hire the best and brightest teachers in order to properly educate the children of the nation.

What they all seem to agree on is that the Federal Government should step away from controlling the educational system. Reform needs to happen at the local and state level to serve the school system and families of that region. Ron Paul brings up an interesting topic- opting out of the state school system. Personally, I feel it is unfair for people who choose private schools, but still have to pay a tax for the public school system that they don’t participate in by choice. My family had to pay taxes for the public school system even though they chose to not support it.

Education is a very loosely defined item in American politics. Yes, it is held in control at the Federal level, but is it the Federal government’s right to control it completely? Other issues brought up were the teachers’ union interference. What I find horrible is that some politicians feel the best teachers should be hired, when schools can’t afford to hire new teachers and thousands of teachers and educators have been laid off due to budget cuts.

 We have yet to absolutely define education as a privilege, right, or an obligation. Each definition carries its own economic plan and government responsibility. Undefined, it remains  a mess of control and educational instability.

Educate your children to self-control, to the habit of holding passion and prejudice and evil tendencies subject to an upright and reasoning will, and you have done much to abolish misery from their future and crimes from society. - Benjamin Franklin

Republican Primary Debate, 9/22

On September 22, the latest of the Republican Primary debates took place in Florida. Televised on FOX and live streamed on Youtube.com, this debate was the most interactive debate held. Americans from all over the country could video in questions or responses to the candidates. The debate lasted about 90 minutes and each of the candidates made their stances clear, for the most part.

The debate itself was obviously centered around the rivalry of Rick Perry and Mitt Romney. I was tempted to make Rick Perry’s responses a drinking game: do a shot every time he said “Mitt Romney”. I would be through a bottle of Jameson by the end of the broadcast. Perry took any, and every, opportunity he could to attack Romney, Romney’s book, and Romney’s promises without ever specifying his own.

Perry failed to specify anything. No details. No specifics. No plan.

One of the first questions asked to Rick Perry was on the Jobs Plan and stimulating the American economy through the plan. The proctor mentioned that the American people want the details, and said “Where is your Jobs Plan?”

Perry responds with, “Well, you’ll see a more extensive Jobs Plan, but the matter is you look at the state of Texas and see what we’ve done there.”

…. What, in Patrick Swayze’s name, does that mean!!??

Eventually, Perry began to debate the actual issue by proposing the separation of government and business so to avoid harassment on small businesses. Romney, on the other hand, debated that statement by saying that the “Government and Regulation need to be allies of business, not foes.”

Romney then took an interesting stance, mentioning several times in this broadcast that he is an experienced “business man”, and only involved with politics while in office in Massachusetts. He made it clear that he is running as a man knowing the ins and outs of big and small business in the country, supporting his idea that it takes someone who has had a job to create a job for others. Certainly, especially with the struggling economic and working climates today, he paints an appealing image of himself as a Presidential Candidate.  But to his credit, Perry does offer a political appeal. For some, it may not be comfortable to vote a business man into office. Certainly, he’d be able to fix the economy- but what about foreign policy and homeland security? For the conservatives who have the global threats on the top of the concern list, perhaps Perry has something.

Yet, Perry’s appearance in the broadcast could seriously damage his image and integrity. Punch after punch he went after Romney like a desperate kid on a playground. Personally, I think Ron Paul can punch harder than Perry…though I will get more shots of Jameson out of Perry’s debating skills…

Obama Campaign Message to Chicago

Interesting excerpt from Chicago with President Obama, the Democrat 2012 Presidential Candidate, giving his campaign morals to the city in a speech he made in April. No mention of policy or money raising- raising the moral though which may be what he needs right now with his approval rating.

Republican Fundraising Woes

Ken Vogel discusses the challenges that the Republican Candidates will face in raising money for their campaigns. He specifically mentions stats on Mitt Romney and the difference between his fundraising in the 2008 primary election and this upcoming one.

Feel Ignored?

Some great insight onto why you might feel neglected during a Campaign. Candidates like people who give them money to tour. Calls the question if campaigns are fueled by those who endorse it only, or the integrity of the candidates ideas and goals.

Red State, Blue State

Winning a presidential election is no easy task. By the time election time creeps into the societal picture again, Americans are already overwhelmed with ads, campaign slogans, and picture perfect promises that seem to vary from state to state. Believe it or not, there is truth to that inconsistency of campaigning, which is all determined by how much the candidate values the worth of that state’s Electoral College vote.

Each state has a certain number of Electoral College votes. Depending on the outcome of the popular vote, the winning party’s representatives will be sent to vote for the presidential candidate that they prefer. This determines the “color” of the state; Americans refer to states as “Red States”, or Republican Party states, or “Blue States” for Democratic Party states.

The strategy sets in based on how the presidential candidate plans to win the election. The president wins the White House by reaching 270 Electoral College votes. This is where planning and campaigning hopes to pay off. In reality, a candidate only needs to win the states with the higher number of Electoral College “value”. If this is the strategy, the candidate doesn’t even need to consider lower numbered states at all, which does that part of the country’s needs and concerns left in the dark and ignored. For example, using the numbers in the 2008 McCain/Obama race, one candidate could take the presidency  if he won California (55), Texas (34), Florida (27), New York (31) Ohio (20), Illinois (21), Pennsylvania (21), Michigan (17), New Jersey (15), Massachusetts (12), Georgia (15), and North Carolina (15), reaching 283 and covering majority of the higher numbered states in the nation.

Seems simple, right? Well, no. Simply based on humanity itself, people in different demographic regions of the country have different opinions in politics. For example, New York, California, Illinois, and Massachusetts are historically Democratic voting states in the last couple elections. A Republican candidate is the underdog in these blue states. The same is for a Democrat campaigning in Texas or North Carolina, which are high in number but Republican voting states. The presidential candidate then must make the decision, “where do I concentrate?”, “where will I get majority of my votes?”, “how fast can I get to 270 reliably?”

Appealing to a candidate’s particular audience is sometimes obvious, and sometimes subliminal. One that comes to mind is a Ronald Reagan commercial shown in the 1984 for the election. “It’s Morning Again” is the title slogan. The imagery used in the commercial depicts what they’d assume as standard living in America: farms, picket fences, people getting married in a church, older people raising American Flags, blue collar American life. Looking at the bigger picture, it doesn’t depict ALL life in American, especially in the cities or coastlines, in 1984. However, the commercial is designed to gain the trust of that specific demographic, Southern and Midwest states, that would vote for Reagan based on those portrayed values alone.

That is just one tactic that seems overly obvious for the manipulation of a perception. But nothing has necessarily changed. There’s no doubt why McCain spent significantly more time in Pennsylvania during the last race- he deeded their vote.

This election in 2012, let’s challenge ourselves to see not the empty promises made in campaigns, but the tactics they use in order to make those promises, and to whom they are made.