Response due Monday (11/5) by midnight
This week we read about the role of money in politics. Money has long played an important role in political life in America. The famous "Tammany Hall" political machine, run by William "Boss" Tweed is commonly cited as a prime historical example of the influence of money in politics:
While not as brazenly as Tammany's time, money plays an increasingly powerful role in politics today. One reason for this intensified role is simply that corporations, unions, and wealthy individuals face fewer (or at least less strict) regulations than in recent decades when it comes to (1) how much money they can contribute to candidates and causes, and (2) how they're able to contribue that money (e.g., direct or indirect contributions to candidates; with or without disclosure).
"Deregulation" refers to any situation in which laws or regulations are removed or relaxed, allowing people and organizations (e.g., corporations and unions) to act more freely. "Freedom" is usually considered a good thing, right? However, there are competing perspectives concerning wether freedom is a good idea when it comes to political expenditures. Proponents of deregulating money in politics argue that it is a restriction on free speech to regulate individuals' or groups' contributions to political campaigns or causes, including money for advertising expenditures. Opponents of this deregulation argue that regulations on campaign contributions are needed to avoid corruption and to ensure a more equal voice in politics for all citizens -- rich or poor. As campaign finance reform advocate Paul S. Ryan (not the VP candidate) says, "if you can deregulate money in politics, you can buy the policy outcomes you prefer" (Kroll, 2012, under "By the mid-2000s").
The most important recent decision in these regards was the 2010 Supreme Court case Citizens United vs Federal Elections Commission. In the Citizens United case (as it's commonly known), the Supreme Court ruled that "corporations and labor unions are entitled to the same free speech protections as people and so can spend directly from their general treasuries on unlimited independent expenditures" (Kroll, 2012, under "By the mid-2000s").
Two of the key words above are "independent expenditures." Under Citizens United, donors cannot give unlimited sums of money directly to specific candidates; however, they can spend unlimited sums (usually on political advertising) in support of specific candidates -- just as long as they don't actively coordinate with those campaigns. Citizens United's deregulation of independent expenditures has resulted in much more spending by individuals and groups trying, independently, to get "their candidate" elected in hopes of securing policy outcomes those donor prefers. You can see this, anecdotally, when you turn on the TV and see political ads (mostly negative) from independent groups with vaguely patriotic names like "American Crossroads," "Restore Our Future," and "Priority Actions USA." These groups are known as "Super PACs" -- groups that exist to support a candidate or cause through independent expenditures. More systematically, if we compare the 2012 presidential election cycle to the 2008 cycle, we see enormous rises in campaign contributions (generally) and independent expenditures (more specifically):
 |
| Source: opensecrets.org/outsidespending/ |
Who are behind Super PACs?
For this assignment, you'll each investigate a specific, individual donor to one of this election cycle's leading Super PACs. You'll find out how much money he or she has contributed to that Super PAC and others. You'll explore the donor's political agenda. And you'll identify some of that candidate's connections to other powerful people and groups.
You'll each document what you find (individually) on a collaborative wiki that I've created for this assignment. In doing so, we'll end up creating, as a class, a resource that provides information on the wealthy and powerful people that are behind this election cycle's leading Super PACs.
To begin you'll need to go to the wiki that I've created for this assignment. On that page, you'll need to navigate to the upper right-hand corner and select the "Sign up" button.
Complete the Sign up process for a Wikia account and then return to the wiki for this assignment. You'll see that I've created separate pages for each of the four Super PACs we'll be compiling information about -- Restore our Future, American Crossroads, Priorities USA Action, and Majority PAC. Click on the link to one of these PACs.
For each PAC you'll see that I've identified seven of the largest donors. Identify a donor that you'd like to learn more about (don't worry if you don't know any of the names -- many of these donors are not household names). Once you find a donor you'd like to investigate, click the blue "Edit" button to begin editing the page.
Once you've hit the edit button you'll see that the wiki page turns into what is essentially a word processor system. In the edit mode, for instance, you have plenty of options familiar on other word processing programs, including: bold, italics, hyperlinking, bulleting, numbering, indenting, and formatting.
Then, click the "publish" button to reserve this donor as "your" donor for this assignment (each student in the class will investigate a different donor).
Click the "Edit" button again to continue entering information about your donor. Open a new tab and visit this website, where ProPublica tracks contributions to leading Super PACs. Identify your donor on this list by scrolling down or by searching for the donor's name (command + F). Once you've found your donor in this list, you'll need to pull some important information from this page and enter it into the wiki. You'll notice that right under your donor's name on the list, you can find the donor's job title, company/organization, and the amounts he or she has donated to Super PACs.
Take this information and plug it into your wiki entry, where appropriate. For example:
You'll then make sure to link to the information about your donor's company using the Bloomburg BusinessWeek company lookup tool. To access information about your donor's company, follow the steps in this video:
After you've linked to the company's Bloomberg Businessweek overview (or another reputable profile), we can move on.
Open a new tab and go to Wikipedia and find out if there is an article on your donor. Link to that Wikipedia article, as this video demonstrates:
Next, you'll go back to that Wikipedia article about your donor, and you'll look to see if there is any discussion of your donor's political agenda. For instance, in gathering information about Harold Simmons from Wikipedia, I found that there was a section in the article about him that reads as follows:
As of March, Simmons and Contran Corp. had given almost $18 million to conservative super PACs, [32] the election's largest single contributor, spread among all the major Republican candidates following the advice of Rove. Simmons said, "Any of these Republicans would make a better president than that socialist, Obama. Obama is the most dangerous American alive ... because he would eliminate free enterprise in this country."[33]The blue numbers in brackets in this selection indicate that there are citations at the bottom of the Wikipedia article for further reading on this topic. You should always check out these citations at the bottom of a Wikipedia article, because these are the resources from which the Wikipedia authors gathered their information. Since citation number 33 looks like it may provide insight into this donor's political agenda, I scrolled down to that citation and followed the link to a Wall Street Journal article about Harold Simmons and his political views.
I read the WSJ article titled "Texas Billionaire Doles Out Elections Biggest Checks," and, indeed, it ends up providing rich insight into Simmons' long history of campaign contributions and why he gives to conservative politicians. You'll work through this same process for finding information about your donor's political agenda. Then, in ~2 paragraphs (or ~8 sentences), you'll write up a brief that describes your donor's political agenda in your own words: Why does this person donate to the candidates that he or she does? And what does this donor hope to get out of his contributions? Add this brief to our class wiki, and make sure to link to your source(s) in the process. For example:
Finally, you'll use a site called Muckety to create a map of the relationships between your donor and other powerful people and organizations. To create a Muckety Map and add that map to our class wiki, follow the directions in this video:
And when you're done with all these steps, your collection of information should look something like my entry on this page.
Assessment
This assignment is worth 30 of the 270 points available for the media explorations course component. I will use the following rubric to grade your responses:
30 points -- Executed all assignment components. Demonstrates firm understanding of subject matter. Execution is excellent. No grammar or writing errors. Is well organized and very easy to follow.
22 points -- Executed assignment components mostly as asked. Demonstrates reasonable understanding of subject matter. Execution is generally good. A few grammar or writing errors. Is fairly well organized and generally easy to follow.
14 points -- Executed only some of the assignment's components. Demonstrates limited understanding of subject matter. Execution is fair, but with key problems. Several noteworthy grammar or writing errors. Poorly organized and difficult at times to follow.
6 points -- No evidence of having given the assignment real thought. Minimal or no understanding of subject matter. Execution is poor. Rampant grammar and writing errors make reading very challenging. No organization is evident. Reads like a last minute effort.
0 points -- No assignment submitted or submitted late.
No comments:
Post a Comment