2005 AP Government Exam question 4 Julian Byles

Each question deals with your choice of the following proposals The questions are worth 6 points total and has two parts worth 3 points each. Each question deals with your choice of the following proposals Eliminating Soft Money Limiting independent expenditures Raising limits on individual contributions

Question 1 asks you to select one of the previously listed proposals and do the following with it Define the proposal Describe an argument that proponents would make in favor of the proposal Describe and argument that opponents would make against the proposal

An example of an acceptable answer for one of the Proposals is as follows… Definition of Eliminating Soft Money: Prohibiting or regulating campaign contributions to political parties and/ or contributions for party building activities. Argument from Proponent: levels the playing field or Decreases overall costs of campaigns. Arguments from Opponents: Weakens political parties or Party money is one step removed between contributor and decision-maker

Question asks you to select a different one of the previously listed proposals and do the following with it Define the proposal Describe an argument that proponents would make in favor of the proposal Describe and argument that opponents would make against the proposal

An example of an acceptable answer for one of the Proposals is as follows… Definition of Raising limits on Individual Contributions: increasing the dollar amount individuals may give to a campaign, parties, or PACs. Argument from Proponent: Decreases influence of PACs or candidates can spend less time fundraising. Arguments from Opponents: too much money in the process already or drives up the cost of campaigns.

Important Notes Definitions of the Proposal itself and not what it concerns e.g. defining “soft money” rather than “eliminating soft money” will earn you no points. Not only giving the arguments but also giving a reason for them e.g. decreasing influence of PACs because individual contributions are already covering the most part of campaign costs