Should Campaigns be Financed by Taxpayers?

Should Campaigns be Financed by Taxpayers?

Here is an interesting debate: Democrats support tapping into taxpayer provided funds to finance campaigns, while Republicans vehemently oppose it. What is interesting is that this idea is pushed by New York’s “anti-corruption” commission. Is it just me, or is there a paradox in the suggestion that the government should fund political campaigns, coming from a committee tagged as “anti-corruption”? They defend their move by stating that “the state would get fairer elections, reduce big-money dominance, and encourage more people to run for office while reducing the power of corporate and other special interests.” This may be the case IF in order to level the playing field, campaigns would be blocked from accepting donations from outside sources, such as third party PACs. However, campaigns are expensive (when factoring in gubernatorial elections, it could ascend to hundreds of millions of dollars) and it would be detrimental for NY state’s finances if it had to allocate millions of dollars towards making sure that everyone dipped out of the same bucket and no one got more or less than each other. While this is fair, as Democrats say, Republicans are right in pointing out that this practice would drain resources allocated for public services such as the funding of federal employees and organizations (schools, transportation, etc). Democratic Sen. Ruben Diaz makes a valid point that this move wouldn’t “clean up Albany” as Senate Democratic leader Andrea Stewart-Cousins insists, by asking, “how can any politician in good conscience accept public money for his or her campaign when so many of their constituents continue to struggle to support their families?”Even if moral conscience was not taken into consideration, it is very likely that both sides of a future election facing this restriction would exhaust the resources provided to them. What happens then? And if they are allowed to fundraise for supplemental resources then what is the point of providing governmental funds in the first place?! Additionally if one of the candidates is an incumbent, he or she can have many types of qualified expenditure covered by the government, thus further tilting the election. The case for public financing is not ideal for either situation. In the end it is the hardworking taxpayers that lose out, by wasteful “regulations” such as this. It is rare that I support stances taken by the GOP, but I must agree on the dissent raised in this issue. If anything, hopefully Governor Cuomo will reconsider his support for this measure. It doesn’t seem like a smart practice to adopt at the moment––or even ever.

The original article: http://online.wsj.com/article/APf333c1ac30c84cff94241244f02f9d7a.html

Here is an additional article on this with more “numbers”:

http://ivn.us/2013/12/10/publicly-funded-campaigns-clash-independent-expenditures-new-york/

Social Media in Campaigns: The New Golden Standard?

Social Media in Campaigns: The New Golden Standard?

Some of you have mentioned that it might be a good idea for political campaigns in certain European countries to use social media as a tool to reach the masses––in particular involve those who traditionally take the role of “spectator” and may not be politically active until voting time. It looks like the UK is jumping on the bandwagon on this one. The UK currently has a mixed control governing coalition between the Conservative Party led by David Cameron, and the Liberal-Democrat Party headed by Nicholas Clegg. The main opposition of the current coalition, the Labour Party (think, Gordon Brown, Tony Blair) aims to use a combination of social media activism and grass-roots mobilization to “energize the party-base”, a strategy relatively new in the region and more prevalent across the Atlantic. I do believe that Ed Miliband ought to take caution and avoid falling into this trap of expecting a similar outcome to take place in the UK. For one thing, the voting behavior is markedly different between the two systems. In the US, campaigns usually begin in January of that year, sometimes earlier (giving around 10 months to campaign), whereas in the UK, there is no such pattern, and in fact in April 2005, Tony Blair, announced his candidacy for the May 5, 2005 election, which he won. How is this possible? Well in the UK, voters vote for MP’s (members of Parliament) in their district, and the leader of the party of the majority of MPs is the Prime Minister and head of the Cabinet body. Thus, on the big picture it is similar to voting in a party-bloc as opposed to just a national candidate like the US. Particularly strong MP’s can sway the election, but this is unlikely if the majority of voters across the UK want to vote the opposition party in power. Thus, no matter how much mobilizing Miliband sees for Labour, if Conservative Party MPs can hold a majority in Westminster, (simple, first past the post voting system, which doesn’t exist in the US), then he has little chance of being Prime-Minister––unless he can convince the majority to form a coalition, like the one that exists now, but a coalition between the Conservative and Labour Party is highly unlikely, given their divisive politics. Unless Cameron and his constituents mess up somehow––lose the 2014 referendum, allow Scotland to break from the UK, adopt the Euro and lose the pound, significant changes as such, I doubt Miliband will be able to fully apply American style politics to full effect in the UK. His fate depends on the success or failure of the MPs in each district. If voters of a particular area like their Conservative MP, there is little he can do to move them to vote Labour, even if the Conservative MP may be better for the district and a Labour Prime-Minister may be better for the nation. In the US, these elections are for separate branches of government. A voter can vote for a member of Congress in the legislative branch and not vote in the general election for the executive branch, vice versa. Thus it is possible to have a Democratic president and a Republican held Congress (say even in both House of Reps and Senate)––just the chance of gridlock is very, very likely.  However, it is none the less valiant of him to try and be at the vanguard of this movement in Europe!

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/11/27/miliband-to-copy-obamas-campaign-strategy_n_4351467.html

Campaigns and Data Analytics Version 1

Campaigns and data analytics

This is the original version of my presentation. As most of it was spoken (this presentation just lists speaking pointers I used), I WILL be updating it soon with a detailed transcript of what I said during class. If any of you wanted to look at it quickly then here it is.
Thanks,
N

Be everywhere

The one with Chinese on it says: spare you change, save some lives.
These ads share the same idea: be creative and be everywhere. Whatever the purpose is for your campaign, it is the most important to earn the popularity first. Even if your popularity is earned by wide criticism (e.g. in the shopping cart picture, it could be read as exploiting an African kid’s image), it is better than nobody knows you because stories can be framed but not popularity.

Politicizing Brand (RED)

Politicizing Brand (RED)

One of the things we touched upon in class was this phenomenon of branding in politics. Branding is everything––besides the actual candidate. The way I see it, it’s a game to open our wallets, which we will do if we succumb to the appeal of the packaging. We read this article (at least we were supposed to) called Better (Red) Than Dead: ‘Brand Aid’, Celebrities and the New Frontier of Development Assistance by Lisa Richey and Stefano Ponte. It struck me how we have somehow subconsciously adopted this trend of commercializing everything, including charity. Championed by Bono, amongst other celebrities, brand (RED) has inevitably found itself embroiled in a storm of scrutiny by critics who suggest that it is nothing more than a painted shark, put in place for a feel-good effect. Sothebys’ website, prominently advertises participation in an auction for Apple products designed by Jony Ive—the only difference between these special gadgets and the ones made for us plebeians? They have a splash of red metallic paint, and in the case of a particularly, unassumingly ostentatious pair of headphones—covered in rose gold. Certainly Ive and co. thought that since people have a tendency to gobble up any new Apple product in the market, additional hype would bring in swarms of wealthy patrons with a desire for new trinkets and perhaps a desire to do good, simultaneously? Whatever the strategy was, it seems to have worked: items such as the red Mac Pro and the rose-gold Apple EarPods sold for multiple times the original expectation—despite these items being more or less a red version of commercially available products. In fact Jony Ive himself told GMA that “it’s a political tool, (RED) is a tool, not just to raise money, as it will, but to raise awareness, which helps keep the fight against HIV/AIDS a political priority. This disease has cost 34 million lives and there’s a chance, in the next few years, if we stay concentrated, that we could see the beginning of the end of AIDS. Who’d have thought?”

Indeed, it appears that certain name-ambassadors can be a vehicle for promotion and even re-branding to a certain extent. This is something valuable for campaigns. Jony Ive is the maestro behind the sleek, shiny and seductive allure of Apple products—whatever he creates, comes prepackaged with a ‘we need it now’ mantra. It makes sense that his latest venture for charity was met with great demand. Celebrity endorsements can make or break campaigns. For example, President Barack Obama is indebted to former President Bill Clinton’s endorsement of his financial policies, which was beneficial given that a president who left the Office with a surplus in the Federal Reserve gave his seal of approval in public. On the other hand, Mitt Romney attempted to distance himself from Sarah Palin, who was a politically divisive figure and other failed remnants of John McCain’s presidential campaign in 2008. In the recent New York City Mayoral race, Christine Quinn’s perceived “closeness” to Mayor Bloomberg significantly hurt her campaign and overall brand as a progressive Democrat, not Bloomberg under another suit. Simply, give the people what they want, and it will sell.

Look at some of the other items under the hammer in finer detail here:

http://www.gizmodo.in/design/Inside-Jony-Ives-Extraordinary-and-Very-Expensive-Sothebys-Auction/articleshow/26224602.cms

The attached article: http://www.express.co.uk/news/showbiz/444705/Bono-recruits-top-designers-Jonathan-Ive-and-Marc-Newson-for-charity-auction

Download the article from Session VII here, if you haven’t already (for some reason, I was not able to attach the pdf directly on this platform): http://www.isn.ethz.ch/Digital-Library/Publications/Detail/?ots591=0c54e3b3-1e9c-be1e-2c24-a6a8c7060233&lng=en&id=23166

Campaigns & Sex Scandals (my presentation)

Campaigns & Sex Scandals (my presentation)

Here is the copy of my presentation I did a few months ago on the effects of sex scandals in modern American politics. If you have any questions let me know (click the link)

Scott Walker…. The Grinch who stole Christmas?

This is a funny video discussing how Gov. Scott Walker’s campaign have asked voters to give money to his campaign instead of spending it on gifts for their children, as by contributing to Walker’s campaign, they will be giving a gift that is much more valuable. Now, this video does have a clear bias, as the panel is liberal  & therefore against many of Walker’s initiatives. However, it does give a good laugh and presents a forum for discussion 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWw-bUznDVo

What do you think of this strategy by the campaign? Do you think it is effective, or would the choice of words, make this a laughing stock?

Facebook Friends & Politics

Here is an interesting article I found on the effect that ones Facebook friends has on politics …

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-09-12/national/35497744_1_facebook-friends-facebook-users-profile-pictures

Basically, according to this article, many people when they see that their friends have voted on FB, will be more likely to vote & participate in an eelction. Its always good to have citizens participiate & utilize their right to vote, however, is using tactics like FB  detrimental to the voting process overall? If this becomes widespread, then wont voting become like a “High school popularity contest”, with people of all ages and walks of life, who will vote in general or in a particular way because of  their friends opinion. After reading thsis article, what steps do you think should be taken by FB in order to miniimze the “friend vote” issue while still promoting voting? Do you see no issue with this?

One of the top Pacs (in my opinion)

One of the top Pacs (in my opinion)

Here is a Pac I am a member of, called Wolf Pac. The goal of Wolf Pac is relatively simple, to get big corporate money out of politics (specifically get the Citizens United ruling over turned). Now, I know we all  may have different opinions on this issue and that is great. However, I urge you guys to check out this site, as it contains, what I believe to be a lot of good & educational information that you may not be aware of. You may also notice that the set up of the site is very similar to how we discussed  in class that campaign sites are set up, with links for people to share on social media, volunteer, details of plans/actions undertaken, and more. Goes to show you how this format/style is useful in many different settings & not strictly for a candidates election

Basil Marceaux. Running for Governor of Tenn in 2010.. One of the best ads I have ever seen :)

Basil Marceaux. Running for Governor of Tenn in 2010.. One of the best ads I have ever seen 🙂

This guy was a candidate for Gov of Tenn. in 2010. This is a pretty funny ad and thought you guys would enjoy it, for a change instead of the seriousness  and negativity we usually find in campaign ads