Election Law Reform - the public's right to know what they are voting for

Would the way to approach this dysfunctional relationship with the UN be to require those running for US president to discuss their UN policy in terms of reform or withdrawal? Demands or Accommodation? Most of the democrats opposed Bolton's appointment and he represented reform. What would their UN Ambassador be expected to accomplish at the UN?

I have never understood how our government dares to refuse to control the amount of air time the candidates must give to the public to explain and distinguish proposed policy AND programs. With the 30 sec answer debates held now (because we have not regulated the public's right to know), NO ONE knows what each candidate's medical plans consist of systemically.

We need more than an hour just on health care to vote with informed consent. We need "single payer" advocates like Kusinch questioning Hillary. Likewise, debates should be held solely to discuss the UN, specifically in terms of Israel, Funding for Women's Projects, and Peacekeeping Project's success at peacekeeping. We need Edwards questioning Biden (who is sponsoring the International Violence Against Women Act), Dodd questioning Hillary. etc,. We want to hear a full discussion of the presidential candidate's UN policy especially in terms of funding accountability and control of gender crimes projects.

The campaigns start earlier each time but the amount of substantive information disclosed is less and less each time. We need single issue debates, one every month.

Do we try to sponsor privately forums and debates where candidates each have an hour to discuss foreign policy? The League of Women Voters might try but will LWVs accept questions from the affected segments of society? It will never be accepted by the political parties unless federal election law requires that networks cable and radio, especially public TV and Radio provide the air time. Candidates on the ballot can be required to attend in order to stay on the ballot.

We need Foreign Policy debates solely about how the candidate's State Dept will prioritize women's issues in foreign policy development. Will the Office of International Women's Issues have control of the USAID funding and be directing the actions of the ambassador in regard to treaty protection for women's rights? Will they be able to hire, fire and fund according to special criteria?

We need single issue debates in this country. No one understands the candidate's foreign policy because they have not had the time to discuss and differentiate their options on the staged press conference format. They can only deliver sound bites.


How do we make this an issue? How do we present our issues to the candidates? Which organization will send in written questions and share the answers?

On my blog, I also discuss how immigration relates to feminist foreign policy, here we discuss how the UN relationship relates to U.S. foreign policy.

All of US foreign policy especially the funding of aid projects should be viewed from a feminist perspective because woman's rights are fundamental human rights.

That value, human rights, should be the foundation of the US foreign policy. Does your candidate do better than Bush at changing the attitude at State from acceptance of slave holding culture to opposition to slave holding culture? Go Look at the Office of International Women's Issues website over at the US State Dept website before you answer. See what they did?

It was not done in Bill Clinton's adm under his Sec of State.


0 Comments:

Links to this post:

Create a Link