If my last post was a book, here is it's sequel. Seriously, I spend way too much time on this unit. But, it's totally worth it. Totally. Overnight, the kids read an article from The Atlantic about fixing campaign finance. While they are waiting on class to start, the continue on with this article from theDaily Beast, forecasting the projected impact of PACs on election 2016. I really like the SuperPAC scorecard, compiled from information collected by the Center for Responsive Politics. This is what we center on, analyzing the big donors and the effectiveness of their donations. It is interesting to note two things: Dems tend to donate less to candidates, and more to issues (according to the readings)... AND PACs are finding it difficult to catch eyeballs as millennials and other generations are gravitating away from traditional television viewing. I assume they will follow the eyeballs, which leads to more personalized advertising, no? I find that the next step is to explain what all the various vehicles in campaign finance are, and why we have so damn many. I hand out color copies of this graphic, taken from the Sunlight Foundation, to start our conversation. I delineate the difference between the 5's and the other campaign finance vehicles, and we talk about the types of oversight and regulations to which these groups are subject. But really, I find that this discussion doesn't make sense unless we tell the story of campaign finance... more specifically, the history of it. So, I write a timeline on the board, and walk through it with my students, making the analogy that campaigns are sustained by money, and that money flows as a river. Every time Congress (or the FEC) tightens regulations... which I liken to damming a channel of the river... the money flows to the next closest channel. And floods it. I use an infographic for the historical background of the timeline, which I condensed from an NPR review from 2010... ... and carefully narrate the evolution of finance. We take a look at hard money expenditures in the onset, and then as we move forward in time, we start to see the evil genius of trying to influence campaigns and elections. The Feds tried to reign in hard money, and inadvertently created PACs. The Feds tried to stop PACs, and opened up soft money. The Feds reign in soft money, and *BOOM* we have 527s and 501s. I point out a few things:
In reviewing a few resources over at Open Secrets and the Sunlight Foundation, we are able to look at campaign financing today. In order to hammer home the point of "magic words," I have my kids do a QR Code activity where they watch four separate conservative ads from the 2012 campaign cycle. They have to listen to what is said and not said, and identify the type of group. The kids say that while it's easy to find the candidate's message, the impact is pretty much the same. It is propaganda, after all. Same goes for liberal ads, too. It's pretty simple. Anyone who has the means to try to influence campaigns... WILL! Whether it be by floating extreme candidates in the primaries to unseat incumbents who are not responsive... or by duking it out in the general elections. In the end, we are all self-interested and looking to preserve our way life. From the Board of Directors to the union laborer. If you have cash, why waste it by giving to the campaign, having your name released publically for a minimal amount of cash when you can put it anonymously in a IRS-regulated 5 series non-profit, and bask in the glow of never being found out? After playing around on Open Secrets, analyzing candidate contributions and expenditures (in this case it is the mid-term elections where McConnell, Cantor, and Boehner are amassing great pots to stave off what are projected to be highly contentious primaries) my kids are tasked with the highlight of the unit. We watch, in class, the Frontline's Big Sky, Big Money (2012). Get the popcorn out, folks... It's one of those documentaries that is easy to watch, and provided my kids have followed along, they totally understand what is at stake. It's just a real world example up-close and personal. Then I throw my kids an essay/FRQ... on interest! Here it is, no bigs... Starting in 1974, the federal government has taken large steps to regulate campaign funding. They have created a public funding option, the Federal Election Commission, donor reporting requirements, a delineation between hard and soft moneys, and a cap on the amount of money individuals can donate per election cycle. In 2010, the Supreme Court released the Citizens United decision, which said that money is speech. Now, corporations and individuals can spend unlimited amounts legally, and even go so far as to announce or keep secret how much they have spent on campaigns. Do you feel that the "magic words" mentioned in the video do enough to keep elections fair and democratic, as James Bopp asserts they are? Why or why not? What would you suggest in order to change election finance laws? And just to completely exhaust myself... here are some additional rock-star sources...
2 Comments
4/10/2016 03:10:28 am
Great post! I am actually getting ready to across this information, is very helpful my friend. Also great blog here with all of the valuable information you have. Keep up the good work you are doing here.
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
Jen's bookshelf: nerdcation
I want to start by thanking Mr. Snowden and Mr. Greenwald for their uncompromising dedication to giving the NSA violations air time and transparency.
I wanted to share some of the most important things I have learned from this book bef...
tagged:
nerdcation
tagged:
nerdcation and to-read
tagged:
nerdcation and to-read
tagged:
nerdcation and to-read
AuthorI lovgov. LOVE IT! I love teaching government, learning about it, debating, discussing, asking questions about government. And not the standard boiler plate questions, but the hard ones that are NOT in the books. Archives
August 2018
Categories
All
|