I didn't think I had any issues with Washington Post writer Chris Cillizza, but then again, I never read much of his material either. After reading and rebutting his April 27th article, "Cecily Strong was wrong about Hillary Clinton's appearance being off limits," I feel the need to go that route again with his most recent article, entitled, "Can we please stop acting like campaign finance is a major voting issue?"
No, we can't, and no, that's not the end of my rebuttal.
Cillizza starts his piece with this:
"There are two seemingly contradictory data points in a new New York Times-CBS national poll.
1. 84 percent of people -- 80 percent of Republicans and 90 percent of Democrats -- believe money has too much influence in American politics.
2. Less than 1 percent of people said money in politics or campaign fundraising was the most important issue facing the country.
How can the public hold both notions in their heads simultaneously? It's actually not that complicated -- and helps to explain why we need to stop acting like campaign finance reform is a major issue in actual campaigns."
I already understand how the public can hold both notions simultaneously, but I'll play along. Go ahead, Mr. Cillizza.
"Let's start with point No. 1. When asked whether there is too much money in politics, more than 8 in 10 respondents said yes. This reflects a broad consensus in the United States that the idea of billions being spent on our presidential races -- including tens of millions by wealthy individuals -- is unappealing, and at some level, regarded as wrong."
At some level? It is wrong, but please continue...
"Okay. Fair enough."
Thanks.
"What point No. 2 shows, however, is that the public's broad dislike for the amount of money flowing through the political system is more a theoretical distaste than a practical one. As in, when prompted to offer judgment on how much money is in politics, people agree it's too much. But, left unprompted, they make quite clear that campaign finance reform is not even close to a top-of-the-mind issue.
Think of it like this: If someone asked you whether you should eat better, almost all of us would say yes. Too many hamburgers, too much pizza, too many frappuccinos. (Or maybe that's just me.) But, when you go out to lunch or find yourself at the grocery story (I've personally never been to a grocery "story" before...), how many of us actually make good on our stated intent to eat better? If you're anything like me, the answer is a whole heck of a lot fewer people than say that they should be eating better.
There's a huge difference between prompted intent and unprompted action."
That's an interesting take on things, and off base, but I'll continue to bite my tongue for the moment...
"And, this isn't just a theoretical argument based on a handful of poll numbers. Think back to the last two midterm election (psst... Forgot the "s" there...) in 2010 and 2014. In each, Democrats -- from the White House on down -- insisted that Republicans' reliance on big money donors would be punished by the voting public. Harry Reid went to the Senate floor time and time again during the summer and fall of 2014 to blast the Koch brothers for their alleged attempts to buy the vote."
Alleged attempts? Right, and Ted Cruz allegedly tried shutting down the federal government...
"You'll remember what happened in both of those elections: BIG Republican victories. Those across-the-board GOP wins didn't come solely from the Democrats' focus on campaign finance issues, obviously, but it's also obvious that attempts to make the 2010 and 2014 elections referenda on big (Republican) money in politics didn't work.
The simple fact is that outside of committed campaign finance reform advocates -- a single-digit percentage of the overall population -- getting big money out of politics simply isn't a voting priority for the vast, vast majority of Americans."
Wrong, but I'll let you finish. You're almost done, right? Please?!?
"Which makes the fact that Hillary Clinton appears set to make getting money out of politics one of her signature issues in 2016 all the more intriguing. Either a) Clinton and her lead pollster Joel Benenson know something I don't (totally possible), or b) Clinton simply believes in the issue and wants to elevate it in the public mind no matter what polling says.
Either way, Clinton is taking a risk if she does put campaign finance reform at the center of her campaign. Because, based on all the evidence of the past five years (and more), the only conclusion you can draw is that average people simply don't (and won't) use how much money is in the political process to make their minds up in 2016."
I'd like to first ask Mr. Cillizza this question: What was different about the 2010 and 2014 elections than previous elections? Give up? The Citizens United ruling could be utilized by the two major parties.
Oddly enough, in 2014, Cillizza wrote an article about how the Citizens United ruling impacted election spending. In a piece entitled, "How Citizens United changed politics, in 7 charts," Cillizza noted that while liberal outside spending was slightly greater than conservative outside spending (excluding party committees) through the 2008 election, that wasn't the case following the Citizens United ruling. In 2010, conservative outside spending was at over $160 million, whereas liberal outside spending was at a little over half that. The disparity was even greater in 2012, as liberal outside spending was slightly shy of $320 million and conservative outside spending was at over $700 million.
That ruling in conjunction with the fact that income inequality in this country is at its worst since the Great Depression, not to mention the fact voter turnout in the 2014 midterm election was the lowest since World War II (36.4%), couldn't this recently released New York Times/CBS poll be showcasing that while the public is gravely concerned and opposed to big money in politics, they feel indifferent and helpless, because they no longer feel like their voices matter, largely due to the fact that, due to the Citizens United ruling, the more money one possesses and contributes, the more voice he or she has in where this country goes?
These recent poll results aren't in any way similar to a person saying they should eat better while not following through with that when at lunch or the grocery store (or grocery "story" according to Mr. Cillizza). When one intends on eating healthier but doesn't follow through with this, unless they don't have the money to do this (which would have been a far better comparison), it's not due to a feeling of helplessness or a lack of choice. When over 80% of the public say they want campaign finance reform but less than 1% see it as a highly prioritized issue, it's due to a feeling of helplessness, a lack of choice, a lack of power, a lack of voice; and it's about damn time politicians stood up, demanded an overturn of Citizens United, and reinstated a feeling of power, purpose, and voice to 99% of American citizens!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/06/02/can-we-stop-acting-like-campaign-finance-is-a-major-voting-issue/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/04/27/cecily-strong-was-wrong-about-hillary-clintons-appearance-being-off-limits/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/01/21/how-citizens-united-changed-politics-in-6-charts/
http://fortune.com/2014/10/31/inequality-wealth-income-us/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/11/10/voter-turnout-in-2014-was-the-lowest-since-wwii/
No, we can't, and no, that's not the end of my rebuttal.
Cillizza starts his piece with this:
"There are two seemingly contradictory data points in a new New York Times-CBS national poll.
1. 84 percent of people -- 80 percent of Republicans and 90 percent of Democrats -- believe money has too much influence in American politics.
2. Less than 1 percent of people said money in politics or campaign fundraising was the most important issue facing the country.
How can the public hold both notions in their heads simultaneously? It's actually not that complicated -- and helps to explain why we need to stop acting like campaign finance reform is a major issue in actual campaigns."
I already understand how the public can hold both notions simultaneously, but I'll play along. Go ahead, Mr. Cillizza.
"Let's start with point No. 1. When asked whether there is too much money in politics, more than 8 in 10 respondents said yes. This reflects a broad consensus in the United States that the idea of billions being spent on our presidential races -- including tens of millions by wealthy individuals -- is unappealing, and at some level, regarded as wrong."
At some level? It is wrong, but please continue...
"Okay. Fair enough."
Thanks.
"What point No. 2 shows, however, is that the public's broad dislike for the amount of money flowing through the political system is more a theoretical distaste than a practical one. As in, when prompted to offer judgment on how much money is in politics, people agree it's too much. But, left unprompted, they make quite clear that campaign finance reform is not even close to a top-of-the-mind issue.
Think of it like this: If someone asked you whether you should eat better, almost all of us would say yes. Too many hamburgers, too much pizza, too many frappuccinos. (Or maybe that's just me.) But, when you go out to lunch or find yourself at the grocery story (I've personally never been to a grocery "story" before...), how many of us actually make good on our stated intent to eat better? If you're anything like me, the answer is a whole heck of a lot fewer people than say that they should be eating better.
There's a huge difference between prompted intent and unprompted action."
That's an interesting take on things, and off base, but I'll continue to bite my tongue for the moment...
"And, this isn't just a theoretical argument based on a handful of poll numbers. Think back to the last two midterm election (psst... Forgot the "s" there...) in 2010 and 2014. In each, Democrats -- from the White House on down -- insisted that Republicans' reliance on big money donors would be punished by the voting public. Harry Reid went to the Senate floor time and time again during the summer and fall of 2014 to blast the Koch brothers for their alleged attempts to buy the vote."
Alleged attempts? Right, and Ted Cruz allegedly tried shutting down the federal government...
"You'll remember what happened in both of those elections: BIG Republican victories. Those across-the-board GOP wins didn't come solely from the Democrats' focus on campaign finance issues, obviously, but it's also obvious that attempts to make the 2010 and 2014 elections referenda on big (Republican) money in politics didn't work.
The simple fact is that outside of committed campaign finance reform advocates -- a single-digit percentage of the overall population -- getting big money out of politics simply isn't a voting priority for the vast, vast majority of Americans."
Wrong, but I'll let you finish. You're almost done, right? Please?!?
"Which makes the fact that Hillary Clinton appears set to make getting money out of politics one of her signature issues in 2016 all the more intriguing. Either a) Clinton and her lead pollster Joel Benenson know something I don't (totally possible), or b) Clinton simply believes in the issue and wants to elevate it in the public mind no matter what polling says.
Either way, Clinton is taking a risk if she does put campaign finance reform at the center of her campaign. Because, based on all the evidence of the past five years (and more), the only conclusion you can draw is that average people simply don't (and won't) use how much money is in the political process to make their minds up in 2016."
I'd like to first ask Mr. Cillizza this question: What was different about the 2010 and 2014 elections than previous elections? Give up? The Citizens United ruling could be utilized by the two major parties.
Oddly enough, in 2014, Cillizza wrote an article about how the Citizens United ruling impacted election spending. In a piece entitled, "How Citizens United changed politics, in 7 charts," Cillizza noted that while liberal outside spending was slightly greater than conservative outside spending (excluding party committees) through the 2008 election, that wasn't the case following the Citizens United ruling. In 2010, conservative outside spending was at over $160 million, whereas liberal outside spending was at a little over half that. The disparity was even greater in 2012, as liberal outside spending was slightly shy of $320 million and conservative outside spending was at over $700 million.
That ruling in conjunction with the fact that income inequality in this country is at its worst since the Great Depression, not to mention the fact voter turnout in the 2014 midterm election was the lowest since World War II (36.4%), couldn't this recently released New York Times/CBS poll be showcasing that while the public is gravely concerned and opposed to big money in politics, they feel indifferent and helpless, because they no longer feel like their voices matter, largely due to the fact that, due to the Citizens United ruling, the more money one possesses and contributes, the more voice he or she has in where this country goes?
These recent poll results aren't in any way similar to a person saying they should eat better while not following through with that when at lunch or the grocery store (or grocery "story" according to Mr. Cillizza). When one intends on eating healthier but doesn't follow through with this, unless they don't have the money to do this (which would have been a far better comparison), it's not due to a feeling of helplessness or a lack of choice. When over 80% of the public say they want campaign finance reform but less than 1% see it as a highly prioritized issue, it's due to a feeling of helplessness, a lack of choice, a lack of power, a lack of voice; and it's about damn time politicians stood up, demanded an overturn of Citizens United, and reinstated a feeling of power, purpose, and voice to 99% of American citizens!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/06/02/can-we-stop-acting-like-campaign-finance-is-a-major-voting-issue/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/04/27/cecily-strong-was-wrong-about-hillary-clintons-appearance-being-off-limits/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/01/21/how-citizens-united-changed-politics-in-6-charts/
http://fortune.com/2014/10/31/inequality-wealth-income-us/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/11/10/voter-turnout-in-2014-was-the-lowest-since-wwii/
Comments
Post a Comment