Choice 1/Choice 3

[Taylor Willingham <taylor@bwillingham.com>]

When we discussed the role of money in campaigns in Choice 1, several people argued that reducing the amount of money would level the playing field and reduce barriers for new candidates. In Choice 3, we have comments supporting the deregulation of fundraising limits (i.e., increase the amount of money available) as a means to accomplish the same goals. Supporters of both choices have even shared stories that illustrate their point.  

Supporters of each of these two choices have very different routes to accomplish the same outcomes. We could debate the merits of each choice for days and never come any closer to understanding each other. I would like to suggest that instead, we think about how these groups came to hold two different perspectives. What is it that is important to each group? What motivates them to choose one route versus another to get to the same outcomes?

Voting for one choice or another seems counterproductive since it sets up a winner and a loser. Must we always have a winner and a loser or can we create a different kind of conversation?