Acumulado mensual de energía de agregaciones de clientes tipo 3 y 4

Political campaigns have changed in nature in the modern era. Two centuries ago, political campaigning was thought to be “ungentle- manly”; today, cross-country trips and expensive television advertisements have become both necessary and the norm. The need for ever- larger sums of money has created a crisis in the political system because donors of large sums can attain positions of tremendous influence. Recognizing the natural link between money and political corruption, Congress took steps to limit personal donations to candidates during the 1970s. The huge sums, however, continued to flow: Major donors made contributions to the political parties, rather than to the can- didates directly—and the parties offered indirect support to the candidates (e.g., through issue ads that supported a candidate’s position, but not the candidate by name). Many politicians argued that the system was being corrupted by money and by the need to raise it, and pushed for radical reforms. Others defended the system as it stood, arguing that citizens should be free to use their money to advance their political ideas. In 2002 Congress passed the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, prohibiting unlimited donations to political parties—“soft money.” The Supreme Court declared the law constitutional the following year.

PROS

With contributions to a candidate, donors effectively buy influence (or at least access, which may be the same thing), so that their interests are represented when laws are made. The result is inequality: The wealthy have more influence than the poor.

CONS

Donors give money to a candidate because they agree with the candidate’s positions. The donation is, in effect, a form of speech and should be protected by the First Amendment.

nonconsenting) combatants. When these fights come to the attention of the police, the perpetrators receive hefty penalties. These penalties are an effective deterrent and would be for boxing also if implemented.

minimize the risk of injuries, it should remain legal but regulated.

Sample Motions:

This House would ban boxing. This House would ban contact sports. This House would end the fight game. This House believes violence is unacceptable.

Web Links:

• Athletes at Risk: Second Impact Syndrome in Sports. <http://www.firmani.com/SIS-case/incidents.htm> Essay on head injuries in sports.

• Death under the Spotlight: The Manuel Velasquez Boxing Fatality Collection. <http://ejmas.com/jcs/jcsart_svinth_a_0700.htm> Information on ring fatalities.

• Journal of Combative Sports: Boxing Injury Bibliography. <http://ejmas.com/jcs/jcsart_svinth_0901.htm> Print and electronic bibliography.

• The World Medical Association Statement on Boxing. <http://www.wma.net/e/policy/b6.htm> Policy recommendations on boxing.

Further Reading:

Calder-Smith, Dominic. Tarnished Armour. Trafalgar Square, 2001.

Hotten, Jon. Unlicensed: Random Notes from Boxing’s Underbelly. Mainstream Publishing, 1999. McRae, Donald. Dark Trade: Lost in Boxing. Mainstream Publishing, 1998.



More often than not, television campaigns are superfi- cial and distorted. Advertisements should be replaced by publicly financed forums that would allow candidates to discuss political issues in a substantive way.

The cost of running political campaigns has gotten so high that ordinary citizens cannot run for office; candi- dates need to be personally wealthy or well connected to sources of funds. Finance reform would level the playing field.

The cost of political campaigns has forced legislators to spend much of their time raising money for their reelec- tion campaigns. Limiting campaign expenses would eliminate this distraction.

Large contributions are made by large organizations: corporations, unions, trade associations and the like. The size of these contributions means that legislators pay more attention to the organizations and less attention to individual voters.

Although Congress passed laws limiting campaign con- tributions almost 30 years ago, the emergence of politi- cal action committees and “soft money” (given to parties, rather than candidates) has made the original restrictions useless. Reform is needed to close loopholes.

Candidates cannot convey their ideas to the voting populace without expensive advertising campaigns in the electronic and print media. Finance reform impedes their ability to communicate with voters.

As no limit is placed on how much can be spent by wealthy candidates to finance their own campaigns, finance reform will put poorer candidates, who depend on contributions, at a disadvantage.

Experience has shown that incumbents usually have an advantage in elections, largely because they are well known. Finance reform will hurt the ability of challeng- ers to overcome that advantage.

Legislators pass laws that have direct and immediate effects on organizations. These organizations should be free to support candidates who are sympathetic to their interests.

Any restrictions are doomed to fail because individu- als and organizations will never surrender their right to express themselves politically. No restrictions should be placed on contributions, which should, however, be fully disclosed to the public.

PROS CONS

Sample Motions:

This House would make all political campaigns publicly financed. This House would ban paid political advertising on television.

Web Links:

• The Cato Institute: Money and Politics. <http://www.cato.org/campaignfinance/> Members of the institute offer arguments on why campaign finance reform is unconstitutional.

• Hoover Institution, Public Policy Inquiry: Campaign Finance. <http://www.campaignfinancesite.org/> The Hoover Institution at Stanford University offers history, Supreme Court rulings, proposals, and current legislation.

• Public Campaign: Clean Money, Clean Elections. <http://www.publicampaign.org> Web site of an advocacy group that supports sweeping reforms.

Further Reading:

Corrado, Anthony, et al. The New Campaign Finance Sourcebook. Brookings Institution Press, 2005. Donnelly, David, et al. Money and Politics: Financing Our Elections Democratically. Beacon Press, 1999. Smith, Bradley A. Unfree Speech: The Folly of Campaign Finance Reform. Princeton University Press, 2001.

2|The Debatabase Book