[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page

Re: CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM IS THE BEST TOPIC EVER

I think that when you read some of the outrageous things that are going on
today the cfr topic will get your blood going.  There is enough on both
sides of the isle to get everyone from Matt Stannard to TD Barnes in a
lather!

Mike
CC Debate
go cfr!

On Wed, 30 Apr 1997, Matt Huntley Rice wrote:

> I agree that the issue of CFR would provide a more than adequate amount of
> ground to debate, and I agree that many current political problems (Becky
> outlines questions about the root of certain partisan platforms as rooted
> in cfr) are relevant to this question.  At the same time, and I guess I
> will be blunt, is this really something that we want to debate for an
> entire year?  Scott Segal off handedly answers the argument that the topic
> will be boring, but I think this is critical.  As strongly as I think this
> is an important political issue, I am not sure that this will be a *fun*
> topic to research and debate.  I may be out of the loop here, but
> restricting campaign funds, while a good idea, isn't something that I jump
> at the idea of running to the library to research.  Any thoughts?  What
> are people's feelings on this issue?
> 
> Matt
> 
> ***************************************************************************
> Matt H. Rice
> ricem@umich.edu
> A. Hi
> B. Hello
> C. Good Evening
> ***************************************************************************
> 
> On Wed, 30 Apr 1997, Rebecca Galetine wrote:
> 
> > hoping my debaters won't have a heartattack.
> > 
> > i think steve lays out some great reasons to prefer cfr.  the main
> > non-debate related one i can think of is that how elections are financed
> > pretty much explain WHY the republicans *hate* the environment.  cfr
> > explains a lot of *why* our government acts.  anyone who thinks that their
> > rep. or senator is out there writing bills and independently identifying
> > issues should spend a summer in washington.  without th4 kind of cfr that
> > exists in the status quo it could become a very different ball game.
> > people who aren't millionares or bought off by big interests could run for
> > office.  interest groups without billions of dollars might be able to get
> > a listen in key committees.  anyway, getting off my soap box...
> > 
> > becky
> > 
> > On Wed, 30 Apr 1997, Steven Donald wrote:
> > 
> > > PLEASEREADPLEASEREADPLEASEREADPLEASEREADPLEASEREADPLEASEREADPLEASEREAD
> > > 
> > > Ok, maybe I am exagerating, but it certainly is the best topic proposed 
> > > for this year, and well, I needed to get your attention.  Please read, 
> > > and think about the claims I am about to make.  I have thought long and 
> > > hard about why there is absolutely no discussion over the campaign 
> > > finance reform topic on any listserv, and here are some of the reasons I 
> > > imagined:
> > > 
> > > 1)it *sounds* boring. That's understandable, because on the 
> > > surface it doesn't involve a major power (besides the U.S.) with a 
> > > nuclear missle and isn't an activist issue (at least not in the social 
> > > sense).  Understandable, but inexusable.  If you think it's boring, than 
> > > you didn't read the topic paper, and you have no idea what any of the 
> > > literature says, so drop the attitude and read on.
> > > 	
> > > 2)it's been drowned out by vocal proponents of the treaties topic and 
> > > more often, the civil rights topic.  This is understandable, 
> > > clearly--both topics have there merits, and there are reasoned supports 
> > > for each.  However, I believe some of you are supporting the treaties (or 
> > > se asia, whatever) only as an alternative to something you don't want to 
> > > debate, namely civil rights.  Also, many of you are unaware of how much 
> > > this topic will cover key issues discussed  under those topic 
> > > areas, which I will prove below.  If so, read on, this topic is better than 
> > > any of them.
> > > 
> > > 3)No one has bothered to bring it up. Well, here goes:
> > > 
> > > My list of reasons to prefer the campaign finance reform topic:
> > > 
> > > The first few concern ground.
> > > 
> > > 1)The number of plans are many, but the key is the DIRECTION that each 
> > > plan can go are very few.  Like the immigration topic in high school, you 
> > > can only raise the limits, create more sources of revenue (positive 
> > > actions), or lower the limits, or restrict contributions (negative 
> > > actions).  There are other ways to reform such as disclosure requirements 
> > > (which can be construed as a negative option), but if desired the 
> > > resolutions can be crafted to avoid delimitation.  This bidirectionality 
> > > offers several advantages:
> > > 
> > > 	a) guaranteed disad links.  The literature goes basically two 
> > > ways here, more limits, less limits, or a combination in different 
> > > areas.  This means that each disad will generally only have to worry 
> > > about two link stories, and still make a lot of sense no matter what the 
> > > case may be.
> > > 	b) excellent counterplan security.  I may be oversimplifying 
> > > things here, but I don't think so.  If plan a raises the contribution 
> > > limit to 1000$ for individual donors, they certainly can't perm "lower 
> > > the limits," and arguably can't perm "raise the limits to $5000."  This 
> > > means a ingenuitive negative team can, with enough research going both 
> > > ways, be guaranteed counterplan ground.
> > > 
> > > 	*****a side note, very important. Several people have concerns 
> > > (including me), that state the treaties topic, and to some extent the 
> > > civil rights topic, will be focused on in depth case debates, card to 
> > > card, but the ability to counterplan in some debates will be lost.  For 
> > > instance, if I ratify Law of the Sea, nothing else in the literature 
> > > solves in the same way, and if I exclude something, I'm going to get 
> > > ripped by exemption answers, which are plentiful and GOOD, especially 
> > > when the exclusionary counterplan has no advocate, just a couple of cards 
> > > that say x is bad.  Another instance, the civil rights topic.  If I 
> > > overturn prop 209, again, no literature for a counterplan that solves 
> > > just as well. Now I know there will be HUGE case debates, but for some 
> > > people, that is useless when you ARE SLOW AS THE DAY IS LONG (such as 
> > > myself).  I can't pretend to think that I can straight turn LOS and 
> > > survive MSU's 2ac....just ask anyone who tried it against yucca and 
> > > wasn't comprably as fast as they are.  However, if the someone runs raise 
> > > corporate 
> > > contributions by 20%, I could counterplan with "lower them by 10%, but 
> > > allow independent expenditures so they can finance advertising, etc., 
> > > outside of direct contributions.  Ergo, I capture the case, and get a 
> > > choice net benefit, and if the counterplan is deep enough, can survive. 
> > > Especially so if the counterplan surprises them, and the literature is 
> > > diverse enough that manytimes that might happen.  I hope this long and 
> > > drawn out story made enough sense, but the point is COUNTERPLANS ARE A 
> > > CRUCIAL NEGATIVE OPTION.
> > > 
> > > 	c)Topicality.  Not often seen as a ground issue, but to those who 
> > > debate it well, it means more than a limited case area.  The treaties 
> > > topic particularly falls prey to this, since there will be not only a 
> > > good bright line, but an absolute one, with no room to beat a team on T.  
> > > Topicality's merits prove themselves when you are getting killed on the 
> > > substantive debate, accidentaly drop the perm to the counterplan in the 
> > > block, or doubleturn yourself, etc.  They are a cherished procedural way 
> > > out, and I am concerned about debating a year long topic that never hears 
> > > T, even in the 1NC.
> > > 
> > > That's it for ground so far, if i had more reasons I forgot them, but 
> > > hopefully enough people will respond to this to bring them up later.
> > > 
> > > Big #2) The most education, even more so than civil rights.  I don't mean 
> > > awareness, or activism, we all know civil rights leads the pack there, 
> > > but how much, really, do any debaters know about cfr? Until I read the 
> > > topic paper, and did some cursory research on lexis, I knew squat. And 
> > > you'll be surprised how many areas it effects, which leads me to the 
> > > next reason:
> > > 
> > > 3)Few affirmative plans, plenty of creativity allowed in advantages.  
> > > Campaign financing is the crucial issue in many instances in determining 
> > > what a gov't will or will not act upon.  From simple attention getters to 
> > > outright legal bribery, a campaign donation guides the hands of 
> > > legislatures into acting on certain areas such as tax and economic 
> > > reforms for businesses, environmental action, social issues, trade 
> > > relations, and general foreign policy toward the world.  And this is just 
> > > the tip of the iceberg...please read the complete campaign finance reform 
> > > topic paper, and you will get an idea of what I mean
> > > 
> > > 	***note, if you are looking for an outlet to discuss civil 
> > > rights, this is the topic for you.  Currently the system tends to favor 
> > > the ones with the most money, namely corporations and the upper 
> > > class---read, majority.  Minority activists, particularly civil rights 
> > > groups like the ACLU, NAACP, etc., and EVERY native american nation don't 
> > > receive some of the special favors and ways to lend money, or even more 
> > > often just don't have the money, to sway the fat cats in power.  
> > > Restrictions on corporations or other independent donors could level the 
> > > playing field, as would allowances for these social activism groups.  I 
> > > think this would satisfy, maybe not completely, but to a large degree the 
> > > desires of those who would enjoy fighting for civil rights in a debate 
> > > round, and ease the fears of those who don't want to JUST discuss these 
> > > issues year round.  And now a further note.....
> > > 
> > > 	Listen up....The vote for the topic areas are coming soon, and it 
> > > looks to be a tight race between civil rights, and one of the foreign 
> > > policy topics.  Too tight.  And a lot of people are going to be upset this 
> > > year if either of these topics win.  CFR offers the best hope of a 
> > > compromise, and even a TESTING ground to prepare us for a possible civil 
> > > rights topic next year, without diving into it if some of you aren't 
> > > ready yet.  We can't all get what we want, and this topic is the best of 
> > > all worlds, for reasons stated above.
> > > 
> > > 

> > > 4)Political debates that are real.  Enough of this "env. action
> > > or affirmative action decreases popularity, an washington quarterly
> > > in '88 internal, a policy that clinton is working on, 
> > > an impact.  The literature suggests that if anyone fidgets
> > > with cfr, they could lose/gain valuable votes on the next
> > > bill they are attempting to push through.  Finally, a Clinton story we 
> > > don't laugh about when we are writing the shell.
> > > 
> > > 5)No shortage of literature in any sense.  This shouldn't need
> > >   much explanation.  It is the thing being discussed most
> > >   in the news today, and as the '98 midterms approach, it 
> > >  will only get more developed.  This means the debates will become more 
> > > sophisticated, and don't have the potential to bottom out and exaust 
> > > themselves early, as some opponents of the treaties topic have mentioned.
> > > Also, the literature is everywhere, and the best stuff won't be confined 
> > > to the big school's libraries, leveling the competitive playing field for 
> > > smaller schools.
> > > 
> > > SUMMARY:  This topic answers all of the BIG complaints with the other 
> > > topics on the ballot.  It has easily accessable literature that even the 
> > > small schools can swim in. It provides a limit to the number of plans, 
> > > guaranteeing more hope for a greater negative win percentage next year 
> > > with it's availability of certain disad, c/p, and topicality options.  It 
> > > covers both foreign policy, economic, civil rights, and additional 
> > > domestic concerns, and avoids the claims against civil rights, for I 
> > > guarantee you no one is going to get into a fistfight over campaign 
> > > finance reform (unless someone is particularly sensitive to a certain PAC).
> > > 
> > > I hope you all made it to the bottom of this post.  And I hope I got some 
> > > interest.  Before you hit delete, or after, I don't care, at least go out 
> > > and type in a few searches into lexis, and for God's sake, read the topic 
> > > paper by (Doyle?  He was the one who at least posted the one I have 
> > > saved).  It is comprehensive, well researched (more cards than many 
> > > affirmatives have for 2ac extentions) and covers even MORE than I have 
> > > discussed in this post, including constitutional issues, 
> > > a central concern of CFR.  I just don't want votes to kneejerk for 
> > > or against civil rights, since that seems to be my opinion of what 
> > > will often happen.  This topic is balanced, interesting, and current.  
> > > There is no substitute.  And those already in favor, don't just sit there 
> > > and agree--write posts against the topic, if only to get the debate 
> > > started.  Its a crowded room on both L's right now, and we need to force 
> > > our way in.
> > > 
> > > Thanks for reading, and hopefully, thanks for listening.
> > > 
> > > Steven Donald
> > > UCO Debate 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > 
>
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page