Self-study
Political scientist: One of the most interesting dilemmas in contemporary democratic politics concerns the regulation of political campaign spending. ██████ █████████ ██████ ██ █████ ██████ █████ ███████ ██ █████ █████ █████ ██ ████ ███████ ██ ███ █████ █████ ██████████ ███ ███ ██████ ████████ ███ ██████ ████ ██ ██████ █████████ ██ ███████████ █████ ██████████ ██████████ ███████████ ████ █ ██████ ██████████ ██ ██████ ████ ███ ██████ ████ ██ █████ ██████ ██ ██ ██████ ███ ███████████ ██████ ███ █████████ █████████ █████████ ███ ████ ██████████ ███ ██████████ ██ ███ ████████ ██████████ ██ ██████ ████████
Summary
The political scientist tells us about a dilemma regarding campaign spending. People should generally get to spend their money freely, but it’s also unfair that some candidates are able to far outspend others. The government should ensure that all candidates’ voices have a more equal chance to be heard. However, the government should not subsidize everyone’s expensive election campaigns.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
One strongly supported conclusion is that the government should intervene rather than allowing the unfair status quo to continue. Another is that the government should level the playing field by limiting campaign spending, which wouldn’t require subsidies.
23.
Which one of the following ████ █████████ █████████ ███ █████████ ███████████ █████████
a
only candidates with ███████████ ████████ █████████ ██████ ██ █████████ ██ ███ ███ ██████ ██████
This is anti-supported. The political scientist says that the government should allow all voices an equal chance, and banning candidates who don’t have lots of money would do the opposite.
b
an upper limit ██ ███ █████████ ████████ ████████ ██ ████ █████████ ██ █████████
This is strongly supported by the stimulus. The political scientist tells us that campaign finance discrepancies are unfair, and the government should ensure more equality. However, we shouldn’t subsidize campaigns, so the remaining option is spending limits.
c
government subsidization of ███ █████████ █████████ ██ █ ███ ██████████ ██ █████ █████ ████ ██ █████████
This is not supported by the stimulus. The political scientist thinks that we should reduce the unfair spending advantage of some candidates over others, and paying for an equal portion of all campaigns would leave everyone just as unequal as ever.
d
all wealthy persons ██████ ██ ██████████ ████ ████████ █████ ███ █████ ██ █████████ █████████
This is anti-supported. The political scientist claims that in general, people should be allowed to spend their money freely, with only certain “broad” limits. An extreme limitation like this would be totally at odds with that principle.
e
each candidate should ██ ███████ ██ █████ ██ ████ █████ ██ █ █████████ ████████ ██ ███ █████ █████████ ███████ ██ █████
This claim is anti-supported. The political scientist’s point is that allowing total freedom in campaign spending results in an unfair advantage for some candidates, which we should be trying to fix, not allowing to go ahead.