Summary: March 22, 2001

Forum Day 4: Choice #1: Reform the Campaign Fund-Raising System.

Participants continued to focus on Choice #1 during this second day of a two-day deliberation about reforming campaign fund-raising through such approaches as: reducing the amount of money individuals can contribute, eliminating corporate gifts to candidates and political organizations, public funding of elections, and providing free airtime to candidates.

Toward the end of this last day of deliberation of Choice #1, 109 of the more than 200 registered forum participants had made at least one posting since the beginning of the forum.

Note: Postings appearing after this summary was written will be included in the next day's summary.

One of the things that characterized the day's discussion was its almost seamless continuation of examining Choice #1. Participants' postings often revisited themes and concerns that had been brought up on the previous day. But they frequently looked at different facets of the same idea or took it to a greater depth. Such as:

• Exploration of whether there is a connection between encroachment of special interests and money into politics and retreat by a public that feels "ineffective."
• Questions and thoughts about whether having the "right to do something" means that it is the "right thing to do."
• That there might be ways to let money flow to politics but remove the harmful effects- "What if we were to allow contributions only to be made to specific races, not specific candidates?"-is one example of the innovative suggestions that were made.
• Further exploration of how things such as free airtime for candidates might actually work- Allow rebuttal time? Only for "viable" candidates?
• Examination of why progress on this problem is so difficult-"Fear of the unknown", "Lack of trust in the system".
• Continued discussion of the importance of equality and a level playing field but with more questions about just what that means and what it might take to get it.
• A cautious but determined conviction that it is time for policymakers and the public to do something whether it is this choice or not- even "one step closer", or at least "a start", and "This is not to say that there is nothing to do but hopelessly throw up one's hands in the face of the present system..."

Another feature of today's conversation was participants' consultation of each other as they struggled with this choice, as in these excerpts:

• "I wanted to present a thought to the participants and see what your thoughts are..."
• "Would you elaborate on 'strict restrictions of all campaign speech' (I hope I'm quoting you correctly)..."
• "Devon: You asked two questions. My reaction to each..."
• "Jay brings up (again) an interesting point about 3rd party candidates..."
• "As Harold said in an earlier message, 'Who pays for this?'"
• You claim that the television is the only viable information source for the masses and you might be right..."
• "Al, I've taken the time to study what you are proposing and it seems to be a well thought-out idea..." And, perhaps foreshadowing of a different choice tomorrow, there were a number of comments today seeking a big picture perspective-"Let us revisit the purpose of elections...", "It seems to me that democracy... is based on one prime tenet; that all persons have a fair and equal chance."

The intent of each day's summary is to capture the essence of the conversation. It is for the benefit of participants and for others who may be observing the forum, or may be interested in the topic, or in the process. Comments on the summaries, as well as on any aspect of the forum, are as always, more than welcome.

Patty Dineen
Online Forum Reporter, March 22, 2001