- Are campaign funding policies biased toward the affluent? (wealthy) Why or why not?
- Does campaign funding policy give an advantage to an incumbent? Why or why not?
- Does campaign funding policy provide for enough disclosure of the source and use of funds? Why or why not?
- Should the U.S. abolish hard money limits? Why or why not?
- Is public campaign financing the answer to U.S. campaign funding policy? Why or why not?
Due Nov. 6: (2) Respond to two students for EACH question. (see the table below). Your responses will be evaluated based on (1) use of one of the 6 required elements (see “Replies”) (up to 3 points each), and (2) the thoughtfulness and accuracy of your response (up to 3 points).
Replies: Two replies to other students’ responses were required. Each of your replies should have done ONE of the following:
1. Use evidence to support a statement. ("Most people in the U.S. believe that . . . . For example, in an opinion poll conducted this year. . . .")
2. Use a probing question to elicit more information from a fellow discussant. ("James, you write that. . . . Can you explain that further? I don’t understand…")
3. Challenge the relevancy of a person's comments or use of evidence. ("Ivy supported her argument with . . . but I would suggest that that she actually undermines her argument because. . . .")
4. Summarize the discussion; summarize points of agreements and disagreement between fellow students. ("Based on the posts so far, it seems like half of the class believes that . . . while the other half believes that. . . "I believe…” )
5. Acknowledge the statements of others. ("As Wilbert wrote, '. . . .', I agree because…. (give evidence/ reasons)…")
6. Make a concession ("You're right, Anh, and I'm wrong! Here's why. . . .")
Due Nov. 7 - Table with your posts and responses (email to [email protected])