Tuesday, April 8, 2008
Poli-FLAWED-entials
Kind of lost track where we are in class, but I just finished reading the George Washington University's IPDI "Poli-Fluentials" study and saw one over-arching flaw in their methodology in defining who is a so-called "poli-fi." I agree that these are the untapped quiet army that helps elect or un-elect a candidate, but it their definition of finding one was too reliant on political donations. Here's my rant...
So, I took the "influencer" test and didn't just get three of the seven -- I got all seven. I am a super-duper influencer.
1) Made a speech on a political topic (check -- digital divide to the Organization of American States);
2) Wrote an article for a magazine or newspaper on a political topic (check -- written tons of articles on the Presidential elections, technology policy, immigration policy, corporate social responsibility, etc. for my own company and for Georgetown's student paper/online journal);
3) Was an active member of an advocacy group, that is, one that tries to influence public policy or government (check -- I lobby directly and indirectly every day at work and I am a member of Georgetown's Net Impact association, that tries to promote corporate social responsibility);
4) Wrote a letter or sent an e-mail message to any public official at the state, local, or national level (check -- communicated on several occasions with Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ) via email; wrote testimony on the costs of higher education and how impacts young adults; and filed a letter with the FCC and Congress promoting net neutrality/ not to mention I applied for the U.S. Government's National Security Education Program fellowship);
5) Wrote a letter or sent an e-mail to the editor of a newspaper or magazine (check -- send letters to the editor to the New York Times, Washington Post, and several large blogs);
6) Attended a political rally, speech or protest (check -- organized getting out of class early via an online peteition to attend the Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) visit to Georgetown); and
7) Called a live radio or TV show to express an opinion on politics or public policy (check -- was going to attend a CNN taping on Middle East, but couldn't make it due to a work conflict...but the intent was there so I count it).
Yet, when I turned the page to take the Political questionare, I failed...what the f! I am a very political person. I blog about politics. I speak candidly about my opinions and open my mind to hear other people's side of the story (heck, I even watch Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace). But as two of the three questions/qualifiers to show if someone is political related to campaign donations...I was screwed.
As I've ranted about before in this blog (and on any pulpit given to me), I believe that their should be mandatory public financing for all public office campaigns and private/corporate money should stay out of it. My rationale:
1) my vote is more important than anything else I can give to a politician. They should only be looking to generate my vote, not my willingness to donate money. Each goal/action is very different and I would have different motives for either. I donate a lot of money every year for education, arts, and to the developing world. That is money that I consider used effectively. Spending money on a campaign donation does nothing to the economy, it is GDP, it doesn't create jobs. It gives a politician the ability to buy air-time on television...well the government should be getting it for free. The airwaves (spectrum) are owned by the people of the United States not the corporations that lease it. And it is in the best interest of the people to hear from any and all candidate running for a public office. Take capitalism out of politics and individuals like Governor Bill Richardson and Tom Vilack will have a fair shot to do what they want to do...make the country better.
2) removing money levels the playing field. Group decisions will allow those that should continue to the primary and general election, get there based on merit (and merit only).
3) removing money from capaigning removes special interests receiving unfair market power over representatives in exchange for favors or votes. Too much of politics has become campaigning. When the 109th Congress was in session for less than 100 days, the system is broken! Even though the 110th Congress is working more, their still isn't a ton going on because 2008 is an election year. Why is that? Shouldn't more be going on, because it is an election year. Shouldn't my elected officials in Congress (wait, I live in DC and only have one fake one) be working harder now to prove to me that they're worth re-electing. in the corporate world, that is how it is done. you bust your ass during bonus appraisal time.
So, back on track. Here's the test if I political:
1) Leading up tht November 7, 2006, election, did you perform volunteer work for a political candidate. (check -- I have helped/volunteered for some local poliicians in New Jersey and Pennyslvania and have written pledging my support to Rep. Rush Holt, my former Congressman in New Jersey who I feel best represents my personal interests)
2) Thinking back to the 2004 presidential election, did you donate money to any candidate, political party, or a group promoting or opposing a cause or issue (well, I don't believe in campaign donations to an individual or to a party but I donate money to charities and organizations that fund educational and development initiatives...sooo, not really -- strike one)
3) Leading up the November 7, 206, election, did you donate money to a candidate, political party, or a group promoting a political cause (see above).
I think the second and third questions should have been merged with the first. It could ahve been "Have you donated money or your time to any political candidate, party, or organization...." Well yes, I do. Thank you. May I have another. Question 2, "Do you explore political analysis that agrees and/or disagrees with your personal views on a weekly basis." Actually, I do that on a daily basis. And maybe question 3, "Do you consider the greater implications of policy for the long-term of America?" Yes, I know that policy may direct the short-term (and most policy is contigent on that because that is how legislators try to get re-elected) but every action has a long-term affect on our economy and or environment.
So, ya I am a super-duper influencer. I have friends on Facebook, Myspace, and people come to me to get my opinion on things...like politics. But apparently, I'm not political. News to me.
So, I took the "influencer" test and didn't just get three of the seven -- I got all seven. I am a super-duper influencer.
1) Made a speech on a political topic (check -- digital divide to the Organization of American States);
2) Wrote an article for a magazine or newspaper on a political topic (check -- written tons of articles on the Presidential elections, technology policy, immigration policy, corporate social responsibility, etc. for my own company and for Georgetown's student paper/online journal);
3) Was an active member of an advocacy group, that is, one that tries to influence public policy or government (check -- I lobby directly and indirectly every day at work and I am a member of Georgetown's Net Impact association, that tries to promote corporate social responsibility);
4) Wrote a letter or sent an e-mail message to any public official at the state, local, or national level (check -- communicated on several occasions with Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ) via email; wrote testimony on the costs of higher education and how impacts young adults; and filed a letter with the FCC and Congress promoting net neutrality/ not to mention I applied for the U.S. Government's National Security Education Program fellowship);
5) Wrote a letter or sent an e-mail to the editor of a newspaper or magazine (check -- send letters to the editor to the New York Times, Washington Post, and several large blogs);
6) Attended a political rally, speech or protest (check -- organized getting out of class early via an online peteition to attend the Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) visit to Georgetown); and
7) Called a live radio or TV show to express an opinion on politics or public policy (check -- was going to attend a CNN taping on Middle East, but couldn't make it due to a work conflict...but the intent was there so I count it).
Yet, when I turned the page to take the Political questionare, I failed...what the f! I am a very political person. I blog about politics. I speak candidly about my opinions and open my mind to hear other people's side of the story (heck, I even watch Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace). But as two of the three questions/qualifiers to show if someone is political related to campaign donations...I was screwed.
As I've ranted about before in this blog (and on any pulpit given to me), I believe that their should be mandatory public financing for all public office campaigns and private/corporate money should stay out of it. My rationale:
1) my vote is more important than anything else I can give to a politician. They should only be looking to generate my vote, not my willingness to donate money. Each goal/action is very different and I would have different motives for either. I donate a lot of money every year for education, arts, and to the developing world. That is money that I consider used effectively. Spending money on a campaign donation does nothing to the economy, it is GDP, it doesn't create jobs. It gives a politician the ability to buy air-time on television...well the government should be getting it for free. The airwaves (spectrum) are owned by the people of the United States not the corporations that lease it. And it is in the best interest of the people to hear from any and all candidate running for a public office. Take capitalism out of politics and individuals like Governor Bill Richardson and Tom Vilack will have a fair shot to do what they want to do...make the country better.
2) removing money levels the playing field. Group decisions will allow those that should continue to the primary and general election, get there based on merit (and merit only).
3) removing money from capaigning removes special interests receiving unfair market power over representatives in exchange for favors or votes. Too much of politics has become campaigning. When the 109th Congress was in session for less than 100 days, the system is broken! Even though the 110th Congress is working more, their still isn't a ton going on because 2008 is an election year. Why is that? Shouldn't more be going on, because it is an election year. Shouldn't my elected officials in Congress (wait, I live in DC and only have one fake one) be working harder now to prove to me that they're worth re-electing. in the corporate world, that is how it is done. you bust your ass during bonus appraisal time.
So, back on track. Here's the test if I political:
1) Leading up tht November 7, 2006, election, did you perform volunteer work for a political candidate. (check -- I have helped/volunteered for some local poliicians in New Jersey and Pennyslvania and have written pledging my support to Rep. Rush Holt, my former Congressman in New Jersey who I feel best represents my personal interests)
2) Thinking back to the 2004 presidential election, did you donate money to any candidate, political party, or a group promoting or opposing a cause or issue (well, I don't believe in campaign donations to an individual or to a party but I donate money to charities and organizations that fund educational and development initiatives...sooo, not really -- strike one)
3) Leading up the November 7, 206, election, did you donate money to a candidate, political party, or a group promoting a political cause (see above).
I think the second and third questions should have been merged with the first. It could ahve been "Have you donated money or your time to any political candidate, party, or organization...." Well yes, I do. Thank you. May I have another. Question 2, "Do you explore political analysis that agrees and/or disagrees with your personal views on a weekly basis." Actually, I do that on a daily basis. And maybe question 3, "Do you consider the greater implications of policy for the long-term of America?" Yes, I know that policy may direct the short-term (and most policy is contigent on that because that is how legislators try to get re-elected) but every action has a long-term affect on our economy and or environment.
So, ya I am a super-duper influencer. I have friends on Facebook, Myspace, and people come to me to get my opinion on things...like politics. But apparently, I'm not political. News to me.
Labels: bill richardson, poifluentials, tom vilsack, U.S. Politics
// posted by Jason Langsner @ 10:01 PM 
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
