RE: Choice 1: Checking our learning

[Denise Hood <hoodsx3@aol.com>]

Pardon my absence for the past few days! I'm using this weekend to play catch-up, so I'llbe posting a whole string of messages, but I wanted to first finish Choice 1 before going on to Choice 2.

>From my interactions with the other online participants, my understanding of the issue of Campaign Finance Reform has been broadened, and I have been forced to look at the whole issue thru the perspectives that others have brought to the equation. 

For example, I had never really thought much about the notion of Free Speech as encompassing Campaign Contributions. I know that others feel very strongly about this, and view ANY move to limit hard money contributions as limiting their free speech. While I respect thier opinion, and have listened to what they have had to say, basically, they have not changed my opinion that money does NOT and SHOULD not equal free speech. Because if money DOES equal free speech, then those who do not have money to contribute have their voices excluded from the dialogue. I see money as buying influence, the more money = the more influence. 

I have always held strongly that laws should be passed REQUIRING that radio and T.V. provide candidates with free air time, but never really thought thru the question of WHO PAYS FOR IT? Because free air time is really NOT free. So it was helpful to see what others thought about this issue.

>From some I have learned that their view is that our elected officials would serve their constituents better if they were to stay in their home states, and communicate with each other and do the work of legislating via sophisticated electronic communications. This would take Washington Lobbyists and PACs totally out of the equation. This is something I had never really thought about. But it was something that seemed possible, and could, in fact, save our government a huge amount of money, and reduce corporate and Lobby influence over our elected officials. 

I think that everyone was earnest and sincere and united in the basic belief that the present system is broken, and something needs to be done to fix it. Our present way of financing elections has snowballed way out of control, and  too much money and influenceare being exerted over our elected officials. This, in turn, makes them less responsive to the needs of constituents, and more likely to support legislation that primarily benefits their contributors. People are feeling more of a disconnect, and more removed from the process, which might account for the high rate of voter apathy. People need to feel that they are being brought back into the process, and campaign finance reform could be a way to entice them back. 

Many expressed the feeling that voter apathy is really more about voter ignorance and complacency, and that it is a responsibility of citizenship to be informed and involved in the process. I hadn't really thought a great deal about the REASONS for voter apathy, although I am painfully aware that it exists, and I agree that people need to feel more that voting is not just a privelege we enjoy in a free society, but a civic duty, and responsibility. We need to start with our children when they are very young, and educate them on the importance of being involved.