[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page
Re: CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM IS THE BEST TOPIC EVER
my email program's broke, so any of you who are actually interested in this
conversation (probably 2 or 3 people) can scroll to the middle of this mass. i
only have one comment, it's hidden somewhere in there...
> On Wed, 30 Apr 1997, Aaron N Monick wrote:
> > if cfr is so much like the health care topic, isn't that a reason NOT to do
> > i dont know about you, but i thought the health care topic sucked after a fe
> > tournaments.. only 4 or 5 cases, counterplan with my plan, just sort of
> > boring..
> First, all of the comparisons to the health topic concern the intracacy,
> specificity, and the recency of the evidence used in the debates. The
> reason the health care topic bored you is because there were only 4 or 5
> ways to guarantee comprehensive national health insurance. But as stated
> in my earlier post, there are 4 or 5 differnet DIRECTIONS each plan can
> go, but the combinations of those directions, and the different areas
> where restrictions and allowances can be applied (private individuals,
> corporations, PAC's, etc.) allow for plenty of cases. Also, you don't
> have to counterplan with just your affirmative....the variance of aff
> cases will mean you should be able to run a different counterplan against
> each one, and I doubt everyone will be running the same cases
> > i think steve's analysis is interesting, i have a couple of concerns:
> > 1. it is constantly in the news. isn't some cfr going to happen soon anyway?
> > know we all thought clinton was going to pass his health care bill in '93-94
> > but if cfr actually happened, we'd have a strange debate season.
> Here is a snippet from Scott Segal's topic paper, in case you missed it:
> But don't worry: just because the issue will be in the news with fair
> regularity as the 1998 election approaches doesn't mean the topic will
> get adopted. Plenty of reasons for cynicism, as Marx continues in 1997:
> (IBD, 2/21)
> "The furor over Democrats' fund-raising for President Clinton's re-
> election has Washington in a dither over campaign finance. But don't
> expect much to be done about it. An indifferent public, competing reform
> plans and today's complex system that favors incumbents combine to make
> reform unlikely any time soon."
> Perfect debate topic: in the news because it has to be, but quite
> And this isn't the only card in existence, it is generally accepted that
> Washington won't act on cfr, especially since the midterms are
> approaching. Do you really expect 2/3rds of the Congress to a) restrict
> the funds that got them seats in the first place or b)risk the unpopular
> stigma of raising the limits, and look like they are trying to stuff
> their own pockets, especially considering their burgeoning war chests?
> Especially when an election is around the corner.
> Second, the variety of ways to combine and effect campaign financing will
> prenvent a status quo action from destroying the applicability of your
> affirmative. If clinton and congress decide to lower the limits on
> corporate spending, than you can still raise them; lower them to your
> desired level, raise or lower individual, pac, or other sources of
> contributions; or deal with disclosure of anyone of the above. And
> again, this is what I gathered from a short, cursory look at the
> literature and the topic paper.
> Third, the impact of a status quo action would be shorterm. The variety
> of the literature, and the plentiful day to day developments will mean a
> good, well researched squad can react to changes in the real world, and
> shift their argument focus accordingly.
> Fourth, do you think it will be any better under the treaties topic?
> All of the "plentiful" disad links to "treaties bad" claimed in post
> supporting that topic would be non uniqued out of existence as soon as
> any one of the 49 pending treaties are ratified, which if you ask me, is
> more likely than action on cfr.
> > 2. what advantages can you claim that aren't secondary and counterplan-able?
> > justice? democracy? ugh.
> Um....here goes.... since campaign financing is often the prime reason
> legislators move their hands in a certain direction, tinkering with the
> system can provide any number of desireable outcomes. Their are PAC's,
> as well as corporate and individual interests supporting foreign policy
> perrogatives, civil rights, economic and tax reforms, the environment,
> crime, terrorism, etc,etc,etc......you name it, your plan can be targeted
> to achieve any number of desired advantages. And what's this about
> secondary advantages? I don't a)quite know what you mean and b) don't
> see why they are bad. They seem to appear on any topic.
My concern deals with the fact that most of the advantages that have been
proposed so far by cfr supporters have been along the line of "x foreign policy
initiative" or "economic and tax reforms", namely, certain legislation that
will or won't be passed now in congress because of slush fund money or pac
pressure. these dont seem to be legitimate advantages since the neg can just
stand up and counterplan to do your advantage and get some link to a disad off
of cfr. maybe i'm missing the boat, but how can you claim an advantage that
doesn't stem off of future political action, and thus falls under the community
accepted standard of 'fiat', on this topic? under last year's topic, i couldn't
c/p to have businesses stop pollute, but i could c/p to revoke mfn if that was
your advantage under a cfr topic.
just a thought
russell likes to ride bronchos -
> Justice and democracy? Well, it gets a little more complex. Read
> Segals' paper describing the complex constitutional ramifications
> surrounding campaign reform, as well as the morality of restricting
> minority contributions, or the necessity to provide accountability in the
> gov't. All very debateable questions, and secure affirmative advantages.
> Finally, until people go out and get on lexis, or wherever, and LOOK at
> what the issues are about, you can't base your vote simply on "it's too
> boring, or it doesn't sound promising." It doesn't sound that way
> because we have no idea what the system is like, and it's time we did.
> Oh yeah, note that all of aaron's objections are reasons why the
> affirmative might be at a disadvantage. Well it's about damn time, even
> if all of his arguments are true. Because if you read the topic paper,
> and my earlier post, the options for the negatives are IMMENSE,
> especially in the political arena. Everyone gripes about too many
> affirmative wins, than why in the hell does everyone see a problem with
> making the affirmative a more difficult side to debate???????
> > go bronchos-
> go spartans
> steven donald
Michigan State University
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page