First Democratic Senate debate excludes the average person
By adamg - Wed, 10/21/2009 - 7:20pm.
Josh Dawson is upset that the first debate among the contenders for Ted Kennedy's Senate seat has a $50 admission fee:
... I, personally, as a representative of the Boston Ward 5 Democratic Committee, along with representative from at least 15 other Democratic Ward Committees in Boston ..., tried to organize a candidate's forum, but was told by two of the front-running campaigns that there was some sort of conflict. Maybe if we would have charged $50 per person, we could have had some luck.
In a period when elected officials are being attacked for not representing the interests of average people, I think this was a political faux-pas.
- Add new comment |
- Send to a friend |
| 
| 
Completely Agree
Josh hits the nail on the head. $50 to watch a debate is ridiculous, especially for a race that public interest seems to be low for. I understand the need for debates at times to be ticketed for capacity reasons but the tickets should be distributed through the campaigns and or civic organizations and not through how much one has in their wallet.
Does the 50 go towards
Does the 50 go towards paying for the event or is the Boston Chamber making money off of this?
If it is paying for the event that is one thing but if these guys are turning a profit then heads should roll.
$50 is an obstacle to a debate we have a public interest2attend
Chamber of Commerce is prolly raising funds to finance lobbyists to lobby against climate change legislation.
Capuano and Coakley should nix the attendee paid entrance fee and pay the the chamber a negotiated access fee on behalf of each attendee out of their campaign coffers.
Your getting your chambers
Your getting your chambers confused. US chamber of Commerce and Greater Boston are not the same thing
Same difference
The Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce is simply a local version of the National. They take the same pro-business positions on legislation, for example, labeling any bill designed to protect the health and well being of workers as "job killers."
In addition to raising money for the chapter, the $50 fee helps to ensure that largely a pro-business crowd will be in attendance -- none of those pesky, lower paid lefties who have better uses for the money. It's actually very smart, politically speaking, because it creates an atmosphere designed to nudge (to put it kindly) candidates into extolling the virtues of the free market -- uh, that same free market that helped to create our current mess.
So yeah, this is a debate where the audience is intentionally fixed.
Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts
This is a off topic but what can reasonably be concluded about Coakley and her values from her written and/or oral argument in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, or the outcome, 5-4 against?
Here's what some other people thought.
Fundraiser?
Will this debate at least be televised so that those of us unwilling to pay money to be persuaded by the candidates can watch?
I find this outrageous, but also a little strange. A debate as a fundraising event? A debate as a fundraising event for a lobbying organization? Hmmm.... Unlike Josh, I do have an issue with the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce for charging admission for this. Also, as a member of one of ward committees (11) who was working to co-sponsor a forum for this race, I'm a little miffed.
Colbert Debate
Khazei suggested in his Kennedy Seat email interview that Stephen Colbert should host a debate. link
"In fact, I’d love to challenge all of the candidates in the Senate Race to a Colbert Debate."
I'd watch the shit out of that for free on live television. I wouldn't pay $50 to attend a regular old debate, though.
Maybe they're taking questions from the audience, and want to discourage the rabble?
-Foxed
Politicians fundraising for lobbyists
who will then turn around and use that money to influence those same politicians. Don't get me wrong, other than charging admission to a debate, I have no fundamental issue with the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce, or with lobbyists, per se. This just seems a little upside-down world to me. I admit it, I'm a little stuck on this.