All-women shortlists or quotas restrict a constituent's freedom of choice  Article 21 of the Human Rights Act, clauses 1 and 3, state that "everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives and the will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedure". Candidates on all-women shortlists would not be freely chosen by constituents but imposed upon them. Some constituencies would have all-women shortlists, and some wouldn't, and this would be completely arbitrary; people's choice of candidate would vary immensely according to where they live, and this is undemocratic. By allocating a specific number of seats to women in parliament parties would be infringing this universal law which will impact upon the fundamental human rights of the voters.


If people feel that a woman has been appointed simply for her gender rather than for her talents, then this will damage rather than enhance the status of female MPs1: they will, many argue, become simply "token women"2. Many leading female MPs oppose all-women shortlists on a matter of principle. Ann Widdecombe claims they are "an insult to women": she said, "Neither Margaret Thatcher nor I needed this kind of help to get into Parliament"3. At a different time, Ann Widdecombe has said: "The concept of merit is going out of the window. I don't care whether an MP is male or female, black or white, rich or poor, old or young. What matters is the merit they bring. We really cannot have targets for particular categories. It's frankly insulting because it suggests women and ethnic minorities cannot get there on their own merit"4. Whether it is true that a lesser-able candidate gets an easier ride in on all-women shortlists, the fact remains that people will perceive that as having been the case. This may result in their views being taken less seriously than MPs elected in an open ballot, and this is not democratic. It is far better than women fight their way in and are respected once they are in parliament.  1 'Women-only shortlists are a patronising stunt


Other options will not have a large enough or fast enough impact on the state of politics. Most women have found that "Even where women have indicated willingness and self-confidence to stand for public office, their efforts had been thwarted by male dominated and administrative structures"1. Certainly women must be empowered through education and other such indirect methods, but that is not enough alone to increase female MPs. Shortlists and quotas are a necessary step to raise the profile of women in politics, and would only be needed up until the point where their representation is equal without this. Education is a crucial part of a long-term strategy, but we also need short term impetus. Positive discrimination gives women a temporary platform from where they can make a difference for generations to come.  1 'Director calls for affirmative action for women into leadership positions', Modern Ghana, 19th December 2006


Countries can develop their nuclear-related technologies without the need to direct efforts to the construction of extremely dangerous, miniature nuclear weapons. Rather, if superior technology is desired, the resources exist in Western countries to do most research without even touching nuclear materials, being able to do much of the research by means of computer. Dominance in nuclear engineering does not require the creation of such weapons. It is better to direct research toward peaceful applications of nuclear technology.


Designing and constructing tactical nuclear weapons allow a state's scientists to maintain a competitive position in nuclear technology.  Research and development into tactical nuclear weapons are essential for countries to maintain their technological edge in the field of nuclear science. The United States has long enjoyed technological dominance in the field of nuclear weaponry. However, in recent years China and Russia have begun to pour effort into developing ever-smaller nuclear weapons for tactical deployment. If the United States and the other nuclear powers wish to maintain their position within the nuclear tech order, they must begin investing further in development of similar miniaturized nuclear devices. Research into the design and construction of mini-nukes provides a number of benefits beyond the tactical flexibility conferred by such weapons. First, developing mini-nukes puts designers and scientists in the West on the same intellectual page as those seeking to devise nuclear weapons suitable for use in terrorist attacks, such as so-called suitcase-nukes1. By learning how to build such weapons scientists will be able to devise means of counteracting them should an enemy attempt to employ them in an attack. Furthermore, the miniaturization of nuclear weapons has applications in other nuclear technologies such as in the design and manufacture of smaller nuclear power facilities. Military technology always finds an outlet in civilian use. Such was case with Cold War technological endeavors, such as the Space Race, which yielded everything from superior computer processors to ballpoint pens. Clearly, the public will in many ways reap the boons arising from the development of smaller tactical nuclear weapons. 1 Jervis, Robert. 2001. "Weapons Without Purpose? Nuclear Strategy in the Post-Cold War Era". Foreign Affairs.


All rogue states that might attack the United States or other Western countries would likely be unable to withstand a conventional military attack from one of them. For this reason, any retaliation to a crude nuclear attack from a rogue state would more likely, and more justifiably, incur retaliation by conventional military force. With its massive conventional bombs, air and sea dominance, and tactical superiority, the United States, for example would be better served by responding to nuclear aggression with overwhelming conventional firepower. Rather than validating nuclear retaliation, and thus opening the door to similar responses in the future, it is better to respond to such situations with conventional power.


All countries have an inherent right to self-defense even when they lack the capacity to do so with conventional weapons.  States, as the building blocks of international society, have an inviolable right to self-defense, and this right extends to the possession of miniature, tactical nuclear weapons. Often states lack the capacity to defend themselves with conventional weapons. This is particularly true of small and poor states. Even wealthy, small states are susceptible to foreign attack, since their wealth cannot make up for their lack of manpower. When armed with tactical nuclear weapons, all states become equal in terms of capacity to do harm to one another. If a large state attempts to intimidate, or even invade a smaller neighbor, it will be unable to effectively cow it, since the small state will have the power to severely damage, or even destroy, the would-be invader's military capacity with a few well-placed miniature nuclear missiles [1]. An example of this is the 2008 invasion of Georgia by Russian troops, which would likely never have occurred had Georgia possessed an arsenal of tactical nuclear weapons, as Russia would have thought twice when considering that its large tank formations could be wiped out by a single well-placed tactical warhead. Clearly, nuclear weapons serve in many ways to equalize states irrespective of size, allowing them to more effectively defend themselves.  [1] The Economist. 2011. “A Rivalry that Threatens the World”. The Economist. Available:


Countries need to design nuclear devices to adapt with changing defensive technology.  There are a number of technological developments that have made the use of conventional weapons ineffective in combating certain threats. For example, some bunkers are buried so deeply underground that conventional bombs cannot penetrate them. Weapons such as the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP), currently in development in the United States, would be able to penetrate such bunkers, while leaving no more surface damage than a conventional bomb1. Deployment of a weapon such as the RNEP might prove necessary in order to stop proliferation of nuclear weapons in rogue states, as for example, Iran has built extremely tough bunkers for the purpose of nuclear testing and storage of weapons of mass destruction. Blocking the development of necessary tactical nuclear technologies actually raises the chances of these dangerous states obtaining nuclear weapons. Another instance of tactical nuclear devices proving useful is in the destruction of clandestine biological and chemical weapons factories. Were such facilities destroyed by conventional bombing, some of the materials being manufactured could easily leak into neighbouring population areas, leading to increased casualties. Clearly, in light of these defense innovations, tactical nuclear weapons are an essential addition to a nuclear power's arsenal. 1 Reynolds, Paul. 2003. "Mini-Nukes on US Agenda". BBC News.


Conventional weapons are perfectly capable of dealing with the issues and conflicts for which tactical nuclear weapons are designed, and are less risky to employ. The predictions by the United States government that the RNEP would produce little fallout, for example, appear unfounded. On the contrary, the weapon would likely scatter deadly nuclear fallout for miles around a target site, causing terrible destruction and collateral damage1. Furthermore, developments in conventional weapons can serve the same purposes, if with slightly greater difficulty. New super bunker-buster bombs are in development in the United States that do not carry a nuclear payload, and fuel-air bombs can, with their wide incendiary range, destroy factories and incinerate any hazardous materials quite effectively. New nuclear weapons are not necessary for the tactical concerns of the future. 1 Union of Concerned Scientists. 2005. "Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator".


While states should of course have the right to defend themselves, this does not extend to the possession and use of tactical nuclear weapons. Just as biological and chemical weapons are banned by international treaty, so too has the international community generally acknowledged that nuclear proliferation is negative, which is why so many treaties are dedicated to non-proliferation [1]. It is a tragedy that nuclear weapons exist, even more so that a few countries are still seeking to develop them. It is better to fight this movement, to keep nuclear weapons in as few hands as possible so as to prevent their development, testing, and use by rogue states, terrorists, and other dangers to international security. This is all the more true of tactical nuclear weapons, whose smaller size and destructive capacity make them not only easier for terrorists to acquire, but also to be used, and thus to instigate a rapid escalation to full-scale nuclear war.  [1] Shah, Anup. 2009. “Nuclear Weapons”. Global Issues. Available:


The unwillingness of the United States and Russia to give up tactical nuclear weapons shows some of the hypocrisy running through the New START. The treaty should make an effort to eliminate nuclear weapons completely, not just some. Furthermore, tactical nuclear weapons are more dangerous than their larger strategic counterparts because they are much smaller, and thus lend themselves to actually be used, which raises serious risks of escalation.


Tactical nuclear warheads are more serviceable for use in intimidation and retaliation toward enemies, as they are considerably less catastrophically destructive than those of current nuclear arsenals.  For deterrence to function, rogue states and other international actors with nuclear capabilities, such as North Korea, must believe that their would-be target will retaliate in kind if attacked, tactical nuclear weapons provide a middle option. Given that these rogue states would likely only have access to low-yield nuclear weapons, it is unlikely that they would be able to launch a nuclear attack capable of more than damaging a Western city. Furthermore, the relative difficulty of developing deliverable nuclear weapons means that rogue nations are increasingly looking toward the acquisition and development of alternative weapons of mass destruction, such as chemical, biological, and radiological weapons. Were the United States, or another nuclear power, to be attacked by any of these weapons, it is unlikely that it, or the international community would consider the deployment of a strategic nuclear strike in retaliation to be justified. The response would certainly be disproportionately large, as strategic nuclear missiles can easily level cities, even with the smallest possible payload. This means that in order to maintain effective deterrence, nuclear powers must shift from the paradigm laid out by the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction to a "flexible response" doctrine, in which countries deploy arsenals of much smaller, tactical nuclear weapons that their enemies honestly believe they will use if provoked. By equipping themselves with a range of weapons, so as to be able to scale responses appropriately, nuclear-armed countries are far likelier to deter potential aggressors in future 1. Pakistan's military serves as an example of such tactical nuclear capability ready for action; its army is armed with an arsenal of mini-nukes that can be used to destroy whole tank formations, with little radioactive fallout dispersing beyond the battlefield. These weapons serve to redress the balance between Pakistani and Indian conventional military capacity. As Pakistan is woefully outnumbered and outgunned in conventional weapons, its tactical nuclear arsenal can deliver devastating damage to massed Indian army formations, preventing any potential invasion2. Clearly, tactical nuclear weapons are useful weapons in a country arsenal, preparing it to be more flexible in its application of nuclear force. 1 Reynolds, Paul. 2003. "Mini-Nukes on US Agenda". BBC News. 2 The Economist. 2011. "A Rivalry that Threatens the World". The Economist.


The feeling of security generated by possession of tactical nuclear weapons will give states the political will to decommission standing nuclear arsenals.  Development and deployment of tactical nuclear weapons can be viewed as a suitable replacement for the thousands of strategic nuclear missiles and launchers being decommissioned as part of the recently ratified New START between Russia and the United States, which represents a major step toward non-proliferation of strategic nuclear weapons. The treaty exempts tactical nuclear weapons by omitting them from the language of the treaty, including as yet undeveloped miniature warheads, as both the United States and Russia have come to see the possession and deployment of tactical nuclear weapons as key to their national security. Replacing large numbers of strategic nuclear weapons with a smaller quantity of lower capacity tactical weapons marks a major movement away from proliferation of potentially world-destroying weaponry. Furthermore, the movement from proliferation of unusable strategic weapons to tactically viable, smaller nuclear weapons can be used as a means of allaying the fears of citizens in the United States, Russia, and other countries pursuing policies of non-proliferation that their countries nuclear defenses are not only still viable, but more practicable.


Safeguards can be put in place to ensure that power over nuclear weapons is not devolved too far. Central control of launch codes, for example, can allow dispersed deployment and tactical control, without compromising the overall strategic security of the weapons. Furthermore, in the case of Pakistan, it seems more likely that its deployment of tactical nuclear weapons will simply serve as an additional deterrent to potential Indian incursions into the country. It is Pakistan's right to defend itself by whatever means available to it, tactical nuclear weapons included.


Much of the technology of tactical nuclear weapons is still in the early stages of development. While many of the weapons, such as the RNEP, cannot yet be applied in the field, their eventual development could open the door to a broad range of strategic considerations. For that reason, it is imperative that work in this field continue, to guarantee that states can have the best defenses available to them and the greatest tactical flexibility in the event of conflict.


Moving nuclear diplomacy away from the fear of Mutually Assured Destruction undermines world stability.  Tactical nuclear weapons undermine the overarching structure of deterrence in nuclear diplomacy. Nuclear weapons create stability, as described in the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). Countries with nuclear weapons have no incentive to engage in open military conflict with one another; all recognize that they will suffer destruction if they choose the path of war1. If countries have nuclear weapons, fighting simply becomes too costly. This serves to defuse conflicts, and reduce the likelihood of the outbreak of war. When states have nuclear weapons they cannot fight, making the world a more peaceful place. Furthermore, armed with a nuclear deterrent, all states become equal in terms of ability to do harm to one another 2. If a large state attempts to intimidate or to invade a smaller neighbor, it will be unable to effectively subdue it, since the small state will have the power to seriously injure, or even destroy, the would-be invader with a few well-placed nuclear missiles3. The dynamics created by MAD are entirely lost when miniaturized, tactical nuclear weapons are brought into the equation. By considering nuclear weapons to no longer fit into the rigid framework of MAD, which ensures that they are not used except in response to existential threats, their use becomes more likely and more accepted as a strategic tool. For example, the 2002 United States Nuclear Posture Review recommends the integration of nuclear weapons into the broader strategic framework of the military and defense department. Such reconsideration can only make the use of nuclear weapons more likely4. Clearly, the development of tactical nuclear weapons will only destabilize world relations, not offer greater security. 1 Waltz, Kenneth. 1981. "The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: More May Better". Adelphi Papers 171. London: International Institute for Strategic Studies. 2 Jervis, Robert. 2001. "Weapons Without Purpose? Nuclear Strategy in the Post-Cold War Era". Foreign Affairs. 3 Mearsheimer, John. 1993. "The Case for a Ukrainian Nuclear Deterrent". ForeignAffairs. 4 Arkin, William. 2002. "Secret Plan Outlines the Unthinkable". Los Angeles Times.


The development of tactical nuclear weapons by one state would lead to a new global arms race.  When one state develops a new military technology that could potentially tip the strategic balance in its favor, other countries are quick to take notice and to attempt to develop the technology themselves. During the Cold War, the nuclear arms race between the United States and Soviet Union reached a fever pitch, with both states spending vast quantities of money and resources to build newer, deadlier, and ever more plentiful nuclear arsenals. Since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, however, the nuclear arms race has been at low ebb. Recent moves by the United States, as well as Russia and China, to develop newer, smaller nuclear weapons, as well as to open discussion of tactical application of such weapons outside the paradigm of MAD, however, threaten to bring the nuclear arms race into the 21st century1. If nuclear weapons begin to permeate the tactical decisions of states, from use in bunker-busting to destroying armor formations, they will cease to hold the special power of fear that has kept them from ever being employed in combat since World War II. A race to develop easier to use, less accountable weapons, while eroding the taboo against their use, spells a recipe for disaster. 1 Jervis, Robert. 2001. "Weapons Without Purpose? Nuclear Strategy in the Post-Cold War Era". Foreign Affairs.


The way tactical nuclear weapons need to be deployed control of their use is devolved to field commanders, vastly increasing the probability that in the event of conflict they would be used.  Tactical nuclear weapons are much smaller than their strategic counterparts, and are designed to be deployed in higher numbers and nearer the enemy. This reality has a number of very negative consequences when considering the likelihood of nuclear war. First, control over tactical nuclear weapons is necessarily devolved to field commanders, since they control both the warheads and delivery systems for the weapons deployed near the enemy. This necessarily increases the likelihood of trigger-happy commanders using nuclear weapons, and little practical means of stopping them. Second, because of their deployment positions, should an enemy make an incursion into a country's territory, its tactical nuclear weapons batteries could risk capture by the invader. This generates a "use them or lose them" problem, and when coupled with the fact that the weapons are under the direct control of individual field commanders, the weapons might well be used. The result would likely be rapid escalation of hostilities, and possibly full-scale nuclear war. In Pakistan, for example, tactical nuclear weapons have been deployed and war games practiced for the eventuality of an Indian invasion (The Economist, 2011). The risks of war and of nuclear holocaust are only raised by tactical nuclear weapons. 1 The Economist. 2011. "A Rivalry that Threatens the World". The Economist.


Tactical nuclear weapons are very expensive to design and build, yet will likely have no new strategic value.  Countries have spent many billions of dollars developing tactical nuclear weapons in recent decades in the hope of maintaining their positions as nuclear powers with access to a whole range of terrifying weapons. However, little real applicability exists for most of these weapons. Weapons such as the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP), being developed in the United States at enormous cost, is designed to burrow deep underground to destroy enemy bunkers, yet it is as yet unusable, since the weapon cannot as yet burrow even a tenth of the distance underground necessary to prevent considerable radioactive fallout in the area surrounding the blast site1. In fact, many scientists say the weapon is a chimera and will never be capable of doing what it is meant to without risking huge collateral damage. Furthermore, it is unlikely that many states would consider the use of nuclear weapons appropriate, regardless of size. This international taboo should be considered a positive step toward peace, and not be tampered with by overzealous governments seeking strategic advantage. Overall, tactical nuclear weapons will likely prove to be little more than expensive dust-gatherer in most cases.  1 Union of Concerned Scientists. 2005. "Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator".


There is no real risk of a new global arms race arising from the development of tactical nuclear weapons. No country is suggesting, nor would ever likely suggest, a relaxing of controls on the use of nuclear weapons. Tactical nuclear weapons are simply more advanced, more discriminating nuclear weapons. They would not be used except in the utmost extremity, as with all nuclear weapons. While tactical nuclear weapons may find greater applicability in the field, it does not mean they would result in a new arms race.


MAD is not an effective means of maintaining world security. It relies upon states being too afraid to ever attack one another with nuclear weapons, but the risk of one doing so remains, irrespective of the doctrine. It has too many inherent risks and raises the very real chance, as weapons amass and proliferate, of their being used1. At the same time, should a nuclear weapon be used by a rogue state against another country, that country must have some means of retaliation. The problem is that the weapon likely to be used in such an attack will be crude and incapable of doing the sort of damage that a refined nuclear weapon of the Western nuclear powers could. This makes the question of what constitutes a proportional response difficult to answer. Should North Korea, for example, ever be able to attack the United States or its allies with nuclear weapons, its crude missiles will warrant a response, but quite possibly not a strategic nuclear missile-sized response. For this reason, the development of smaller, more versatile nuclear weapons makes these strategic considerations easier to manage, and allows for a range of responses left unavailable by the current blunt instrument of strategic nuclear missiles. 1 Sagan, Scott D. 1993. The Limits of Safety: Organizations, Accidents, and Nuclear Weapons. Princeton: Princeton University Press.


The rules under which an individual citizen operate are different from those of corporations and should remain that way. Corporations and individuals are two completely different entities and they represent different interests. While an individual accounts for her interests, a company represents a large number of people. In addition, difference in the size of individual and corporate campaign contributions is usually quite significant.  Despite increasing number of individual contributions, the donations from large interest groups, such as corporations, often exceeds sums from individuals as in 2000 and 2001- by $176 million and &171 million respectively. Empirical evidence suggests that large sums from corporations almost never buys votes but access to policy-makers at key moments of policymaking after campaigns which has serious implications on the levels of corruption. [1] While individuals often contribute as an act of democratic participation, the interest groups donate money in campaigns as investment. Therefore, the rules regulating them should be different.Reforms like the BCRA that limit donations from corporations and unions enable individual contributions and minimizes the role and influence of interest groups.  [1] Franz, Michael. "The Interest Group Response to Campaign Finance Reform." Campaign Finance: The Problems and Consequences of Reform. Ed. Robert Boatright. New York: International Debate Education Association, 2011, 2011. 66-83. P.70


In regards to free speech, corporations should have the same rights as individuals if they are spending money on the campaigns.  When a corporation and an individual are both trying to achieve the same goal, they should be able to do so in the same way. It would be unfair if the campaign finance reform limits the amount that an individual could contribute, but not that of a corporation when it is apparent that corporations are contributing considerably larger amounts than individuals as seen in the case of the pharmaceutical industry. Corporations need to have the same rights and limitations on campaign contributions and economic freedom.  This was why the US Supreme Court ruled that the federal ban on spending by corporations was unconstitutional under the First Amendment Act in 2010. This led to the Super PACs because they represent an association of people and have the right to freedom of speech and political preference. Reforms, such as Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) may have been successful in curtailing interest groups role as investors in campaigns, they failed when it comes to candidate advocacy as a result of super PACs. Such regulations that limit large-scale political spending from interest groups serves to limit speech crucial to political groups without a broad base of support or political entrepreneurs like Swift Boat Veterans for Truth that got its message aired when the national media was ignoring the issue. Moreover, bans on corporate contributions did not prevent alternative ways for candidate advocacy, such as the private satellite radio station of the National Rifle Association or the movies made by the Citizens United [1] These alternative ways could undermine the principle of fair and transparent campaigns more than the lack of such limit on spending from individuals and corporations and their political expression.  [1] Smith, Bradley. "The Myth of Campaign Finance Reform." Campaign Finance: The Problems and Consequences of Reform. Ed. Robert Boatright. New York: International Debate Education Association, 2011. 46-62. P.58-9


Even under the most radical proposals for reform, loopholes will exist and enable candidates to spend more or reach their audiences through alternative means. This was precisely the kind of development which led reformers to want to close the soft-money loophole. As with the tax system, the more elaborate the regulation, the more obscure and distorting the ways that are adopted to get around it.  There is actually a higher turnover in public office than some critics of the present campaign finance systems would like to admit. Retirements, scandals, and careful allocation of party resources make turnover possible under a variety of scenarios. Turnover also has significant negative effects, as critics of term limits have pointed-out. The more often new officeholders begin their jobs the steeper the "learning curve" for a new Congress or other legislative body becomes.  Moreover, the effect for challengers could be different. Finance limitations benefit the most popular candidates who already have a large base of support. Political minorities, newcomers, and outcasts will find it difficult to reach enough people to raise the money they need through many small contributions. The financial limitations further limit the possibilities for such campaigns in the future.


Anonymity increases the distortive effects of money in American politics.  Allowing anonymity of contribution to “Issue Ads” and to Super PACs only amplifies the corrosive effect money has on American politics.  Without knowing where the funding for particular “Issue Ads” come from, the intentions of contributors can be obfuscated and issues can be easily branded into political palatable campaigns by allowing contributors to keep themselves and their agendas hidden [1] . Using names such as the “America Future Fund” [2] and the “Coalition of American Seniors” [3] political allegiances and agendas are hidden from view, removing a much needed critical evaluation of those who contribute and what their ends are. Further to this, the anonymity of Super PACs make it easy for foreign contributors, who are banned by US law from contributing to campaigns, to secretly contribute to campaigns, helping to skew American democracy by giving undue political influence to foreign corporations and their interests [4] .  Anonymity of Super PACs allows people to obfuscate their intentions and turn campaigns into opaque propaganda, removing the capacity for proper democracy and political debate.  [1] "Campaign Finance: Ignore that $800,000 behind the curtain." Economist 04 Oct 2010, n. pag. Web. 30 Nov. 2011.   [2] ibid  [3] "ibid  [4] Parnell, Sean. "A campaign finance 'reform' twofer from Think Progress." Campaign Freedom. Center for Competitive Politics, 05 Oct 2010. Web. 29 Nov. 2011.


Neither individuals nor corporations should be permitted to make unlimited contributions  Currently, Super PACs are organizations that can receive unlimited contributions, which encourages the belief that the amount of money contributed is directly correlated to the amount of influence the donor could have. By permitting individuals or corporations to make unlimited contributions, the current legislation undermines the democratic character of the elective process. Political figures related to the sponsored Super PACs have an incentive to satisfy the needs of those who contribute huge amounts of funding towards their campaign rather than meet the needs of the average citizen. This is not the way that democracy should be; it must represent the viewpoint and needs of the majority of the population, not just the small fraction of it that is wealthy enough to effectively pay for policies they want. Furthermore, caps on contributions to Super PACs will bring competition in elections back into the mainstream and when more citizens contribute to politicians, they will be more engaged in politics. [1]  For example, the pass of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) eliminated soft money for parties and attempted to handle the elections contributions through PACs. With the elimination of soft money for parties, the role of interest groups investment decreased in the 1990s. [2] Obama’s campaign in 2008 raised 114.1 million or 34% of his general election fund from small contributions. His unprecedented small donor fundraising success can be interpreted as increased credibility and public visibility for Obama and through this the benefit of mobilizing lots of small donations. In 2008, Obama used online communications and social networking tools to reach and mobilise more people. In effect of this approach, he not only inspired an unprecedented number of young and retired people to get involved in the campaign, but also achieved the highest rate of small contributions. [3]  [1] Malbin, Michael, Anthony Corrado, Thomas Mann, and Norman Ornstein. "Reform in an Age of NEtworked Campaigns." Campaign Finance: The Problems and Consequences of Reform. By Robert Boatright. New York: International Debate Education Association, 2011. 84-106. Print.  [2] Franz, Michael. "The Interest Group Response to Campaign Finance Reform." Campaign Finance: The Problems and Consequences of Reform. Ed. Robert Boatright. New York: International Debate Education Association, 2011, 2011. 66-83.  [3] Malbin, 2011.


To limit the ability of any person or a group, to influence a democratic political process is rather undemocratic and discriminatory. Groups should to be able to express their voice, and attempt to influence politics. Any form of limitation of that is an infringement of their rights as citizens in a democratic country.  Limiting contributions could equally be used to achieve a partisan advantage. The Tillman Act banning corporate contributions to campaigns in 1907 is a good example. It was sponsored by the South Carolina senator Tillman who wanted to embarrass President Roosevelt for his heavily reliance on corporate funding in his 1904 election campaign. Tillman often bragged about his role in vote frauds; thus, revealing his bill was less about public good and more to gain partisan advantage. [1] This was repeated a couple of times since, despite the numerous regulatory bills that have been passed. According to Smith’s research, the effect of campaign-finance regulations has been to help people who passed them and to strengthen special interest, rather than to cleanse American politics of the influence of self-interested factions. Money is the means by which those who lack talents or other resources with direct political value are able to participate in politics beyond voting. This reform favour people and corporations skilled and able to afford political advertising over those skilled in other building homes or other fields with no media influence.  Thus, the reform undermines efforts for equal access to the political arena by restricting campaign contributions.  Data analysis of the last three elections also shows that campaign –finance regulations are of little value. Many scholars, such as Stephen Ansolabehere, James Snyder, and John de Figueiredo, believe that it is not the contributions that corrupt politicians, therefore, limiting contributions will not tackle the problem of corruption. Legislators’ votes usually depend on own beliefs and preferences of their voters and their parties and contributions have no detectable effects on legislative behaviour. [2] The past two elections at which Obama won over better known and funded leaders like Hillary Clinton and Romney who did not lack funds shows that support for ideology was more important than funds.  [1] Smith, Bradley. "The Myth of Campaign Finance Reform." Campaign Finance: The Problems and Consequences of Reform. Ed. Robert Boatright. New York: International Debate Education Association, 2011. 46-62. P.52  [2] Smith, 2011, P.54


Releasing the names of individual people who have contributed to a campaign will in no way indicate what interests were at play in creating a particular political campaign ad or strategy. Moreover, this is at best an argument against propagandizing political ads, not one for releasing the names of people who financially donated to that ad.  The campaign finance reform failed to achieve political equality and does not affect wealthy donors or prominent candidates. Often, the most authentic grassroots candidates and campaigns are burdened by such regulations. In 2000, Mac Warren ran for Congress in Texas and spent just $40, 000, half of his money. 2 pieces of the literature failed to contain the required notice that the literature was paid for by the committee and his campaign was fined by $1,000. [1]  [1] Smith, Bradley. "The Myth of Campaign Finance Reform." Campaign Finance: The Problems and Consequences of Reform. Ed. Robert Boatright. New York: International Debate Education Association, 2011. 46-62. P.59


Even the most radical campaign finance reform proposals have yet to eliminate corporate or union contributions. Short of such bans, the potential for large organizations to swamp the donations of individual voters still exists. Additionally, limitations on the voice of unions, businesses and special interest groups are another form of potential infringement on the rights of free speech and assembly. Who is to say that a union member’s contribution to their organization’s political action committee is not significant speech comparable to the individual gesture they make when they donate to a candidate themselves? It is reasonable that union members or shareholders choose to trust their leaders to use their money in order to best advance their interests.


Further reforms would create a level playing field  A further reform limiting super PACs would have the effect of leveling the playing field for candidates. Candidates with enormous leadership potential but small wallets have failed due to the lack of resources. Under a reformed campaign finance system, it will be more difficult for well-financed candidates to win purely because of the money they have. Incumbent candidates have a unique advantage over challengers in the present system because of their direct connections to important sources of money.  Campaign finance reform will make elections more competitive and thus enhance higher turnover or "fresh blood" in politics. This is essential for challenging old orthodoxies and bringing in new ideas. It will also make it easier for members of ethnic minorities and the working class to seek office - such groups are disproportionately deterred from candidacy by the current need to raise large sums of money.  Quantitative analysis of elections involving incumbents from twenty-five states across three election cycles indicate that more stringent campaign finance laws increase the likelihood of new challengers to the current incumbent. [1] Financing laws limiting fundraising increase the likelihood of minority-party and independent challengers and produce higher rate of election competition. As a result challengers feel they have better chances against the incumbents.  [1] Hamm, Keith E., and Hogan, Robert E., “Campaign Finance Laws and Candidacy Decisions in State Legislative Elections”, Campaign Finance: The Problems and Consequences of Reform. Ed. Robert Boatright. New York: International Debate Education Association, 2011, 2011. 171-191.


Stopping super PACs would place an emphasis on actual issues rather than politicians selling themselves.  Campaign finance reform gives the individual donor a voice more comparable to other donors’ interests. At present, the enormous amount of money channeled into campaigns by large corporations, unions, and special interest groups through PACs overwhelm the smaller, limited contributions of individual donors. Reforming the super PACs and limiting these large group donations would increase the significance of donations by individual voters, likely increasing the responsiveness of candidates to voters/donors and so increasing their accountability to their electorate. Additionally, the increased significance of individual contributions encourages voter participation and activism.


It is exactly because certain organizations have particular interests that it is important to reveal when they fund Issue Ads or campaign initiatives [1] . People hold these biases and views of organizations like the National Rifle Association for a reason. If the involvement of this organisation invokes suspicion in a conscientious voter, then that voter has the right to be alerted about that suspicion.  [1] McIntire, Mike. "The Secret Sponsors." New York Times 02 Oct 2010, n. pag. Web. 30 Nov. 2011.


In the context of sponsoring a campaign figure, there should be no differentiation between corporations and individuals. The incentives to fund a candidate and the political outcomes that result from corporatist and individual contributions are the same, therefore, legally treated as such. The idea that the government may restrict the speech of some elements of our society in order to enhance the relative voice of others is against the First Amendment.


Further campaign finance reform is simply unrealistic and too ambitious.  It is simply unfeasible for this policy to work effectively. There are two key issues that arise to prevent this policy from having any positive impact.  Firstly, when dealing with the general public actually knowing who is contributing, the vast majority of these contributions, whether from a corporation or an individual, are contributed under the names of individuals. The first problem with this is that thousands of names of individuals cannot fit into a commercial advertisement. There would have to be a list created which is made public, but, unfortunately, the vast majority of people will not seek this list out and so will not become any more informed about who is behind the advertisement.  The second problem is that even if the public did find the list, individual names do not hold any weight or indication of the types of interests that are backing campaigns and advertisements. “John Smith” and “Joe Jones” will not indicate to a normal person that this advertisement was funded by an oil company even if these people are the oil company’s CEO and Managing Director.  Secondly, corporations and large businesses that want to avoid detection will simply donate the money under an individual’s name or donate ‘in the name’ of multiple employees of the company in quantities small enough not to raise any suspicion as they already do with current campaign donations to stay under funding caps. There are already instances, such as ASG in 2012, where CEOs pressurise their employees into making donations, [1] if they are no longer able to spend as much as they wish themselves they will be much more likely to use their employees.  Therefore, this policy does nothing to help the American political situation.  [1] Volsky, Igot, “CEO Asks Employees To Help Company ‘And Yourself’ By Donating $2,500 To Romney”, Think Progress, 20 October 2012,


Anonymity Ensures that Campaigning Rises above Identity Attacks.  Certain political groups are politically disenfranchised because of perceptions about them that exist of in the society. Some groups are considered as being political enemies by their counterparts from more powerful opposing political parties and therefore, they cannot engage meaningfully in the political discourse without being dismissed at the get-go.  Allowing anonymity in Issue Ads allows people and groups to fund political speech and support certain policies and political discussions without having social perceptions of their membership to certain groups taint their political activity. This is especially important in America where membership to certain groups is considered to coincide with political allegiance like in the case of the National Rifle Association and the Republican Party. 39% of people say that they would be less likely to support a candidate if they were supported by the NRA so it is clear that the NRA can best support a campaign anonymously. [1]  Anonymity will enfranchise certain forms of political activity by individuals and associations which otherwise would have been dismissed by voters. Therefore, allowing anonymity allows for less partisan policy discussion.  [1] Jensen, Tom, “Americans consider NRA endorsement to be a negative”, Public Policy Polling, 5 February 2013,


Corporations are fundamentally different than individuals and have the right to influence politics differently.  The rules under which an individual citizen operate are different from those of corporations and should remain that way. Corporations and individuals are two completely different entities and they represent different interests. While an individual accounts for her interests, a company represents a large number of people and may not fully represent the views of any of them. Thus many big companies while favoring one party or the other actually give to both parties, Honeywell International for example to July 2012 had given more than $2.2million with 63% going to the Republicans and the rest to the Democrats. [1] These companies clearly then bet on both sides, presumably however their senior staff are actually supporting one or the other.  Empirical evidence suggests that large sums from corporation almost never buys votes but access to policy-makers at key moments of policymaking after campaigns which has serious implications on the levels of corruption. While individuals often contribute as an act of democratic participation, the interest groups donate money in campaigns as investment. Therefore, the rules regulating them should be different. Reforms like the BCRA that limit donations from corporations and unions enable individual contributions and minimize the role and influence of interest groups.  [1] McIntyre, Douglas A., and Hess, Alexander E. M., “10 Companies Making the Biggest Political Donations: 24/7 Wall St.”, Huffington Post, 2 July 2012,


Although it may not be immediately apparent to the average TV-watcher who is funding these campaigns, the importance of releasing the names of funders is to allow investigative journalists to conduct research on these names and draw together any conclusions the public may need to know about who is funding candidates. This also applies to other techniques that corporations may employ to get around publicity. Nevertheless, there is a much better chance that the dots will be connected for the public if the names of donors are released.


Airport profiling is a violation of individual rights because it targets and harms certain groups more than others. Muslims and ethnic minorities will be especially harmed by security profiling as it will predominantly be members of these groups who are detained at departure gates and subjected to extra scrutiny. This will make them feel like second-class citizens; they will believe that the government presumes them to be terrorists, even when they are innocent.  Consequently, Arab, Asian and African Muslims, and migrants from majority Muslim states will benefit much less from security profiling than whites and non-Muslims do. If the proposition is correct and profiling is successful these groups may benefit from being safer when flying, however many more of them will also suffer far more and more detailed checks in order to be able to fly. Individual rights suffer when a particular person or group is subject to unwarranted discrimination; something which profiling, particularly if it had an ethnic component would bring. The government violates individual rights here by treating and benefitting its citizens unequally on the grounds of race and religion.


Profiling is consistent with individual rights:  Profiling is not about demonizing people or violating their rights. As Mark Farmer argues: "It still amazes me how words can be so quickly demonized, so the very mention of the word causes irrational outrage. “Profile” doesn’t mean baseless discrimination against a certain nationality or race — in this case, it means judging people at airports by set of criteria which raise a red flag." [1]  Profiling, by making security more effective, would in fact better safeguard everyone’s rights. Khalid Mahmood, a Muslim Labour MP for Birmingham, argues: "I think most people would rather be profiled than blown up. It wouldn't be victimisation of an entire community. I think people will understand that it is only through something like profiling that there will be some kind of safety. If people want to fly safely we have to take measures to stop things like the Christmas Day plot. Profiling may have to be the price we have to pay. The fact is the majority of people who have carried out or planned these terror attacks have been Muslims.” [2]  The state has a duty to protect its citizens by ensuring that its security apparatus is effective and adaptable, even if this means running afoul of political correctness and the rights of those individuals affected. According to Michael Reagan, president of The Reagan Legacy Foundation: "Political correctness killed innocent people at Fort Hood, an Army base in Texas, when Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan gunned down 13 people and wounded many others despite the fact that his fellow officers were aware of his attachment to radical Islamism and all that it implied. It is the same political correctness that is stopping us today from doing what we truly need to be doing at airports and other public places: profiling all passengers." [3] As long as there is a net benefit to everyone of increased security, then individual rights are actually better protected, as everyone who travels has a greater chance of not being blown up.  The state should accord a higher priority- when balancing the competing rights claims of citizens- to policies and powers that protect individuals from terrorist attacks than to protecting citizens from the transient feelings of victimisation and isolation that result from profiling. The harm that results from failing to uphold the former is much, much greater than the harm that would attach to the later.  Therefore the state should protect the individual rights of its citizens by ensuring that they are protected first –by instituting security profiling at airports.  [1] Reagan, Michael. "Profiling is answer for U.S. airport security." Athens Banner-Herald. 27 November 2010.   [2] Sawer, Patrick. “Muslim MP: security profiling at airports is ‘price we have to pay’”. The Telegraph. 2 January 2010.   [3] Reagan, Michael. "Profiling is answer for U.S. airport security." Athens Banner-Herald. 27 November 2010.


Broad screening at airports does make travellers safer. As Bruce Schneier, a security technologist, argues: "As counterintuitive as it may seem, we’re all more secure when we randomly select people for secondary screening — even if it means occasionally screening wheelchair-bound grandmothers and innocent looking children." [1] This is because otherwise terrorists can observe what profiles our security forces are using, by seeing who is stopped and checked more closely, and thus adapt themselves to not be caught by them. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that al-Qaeda could recruit children or the elderly to be its suicide bombers, and hence random checks are essential in order to allow us to have some chance of catching these terrorists,. If we simply resort to profiling, we will always be one step behind the terrorists and will have no chance of catching any of their operatives who fall outside the profiles.  [1] Schneier, Bruce. "Profiling Makes Us Less Safe". New York Times, Room for Debate. 4 January 2010.


Profiling is effective and necessary:  It is an unavoidable fact that most terrorists today fit into certain demographics and categories, and so it is worth creating profiles of these categories and investigating more thoroughly anyone who fits into these profiles, as they are far more likely to be potential terrorists. As Asra Q. Nomani argued in 2010: "As an American Muslim, I’ve come to recognize, sadly, that there is one common denominator defining those who’ve got their eyes trained on U.S. targets: MANY of them are Muslim—like the Somali-born teenager arrested Friday night for a reported plot to detonate a car bomb at a packed Christmas tree-lighting ceremony in downtown Portland, Oregon. We have to talk about the taboo topic of profiling because terrorism experts are increasingly recognizing that religious ideology makes terrorist organizations and terrorists more likely to commit heinous crimes against civilians, such as blowing an airliner out of the sky. Certainly, it’s not an easy or comfortable conversation but it’s one, I believe, we must have." [1]  This resolution would not require the targeting of all Muslims, but rather those who meet further profile characteristics. As Dr Shaaz Mahboob, of British Muslims for Secular Democracy, said in 2010: "We have seen that certain types of people who fit a certain profile – young men of a particular ethnic background – have been engaged in terror activities, and targeting this sort of passenger would give people a greater sense of security. Profiling has to be backed by this type of statistical and intelligence-based evidence. There would be no point in stopping Muslim grandmothers." [2] Profiles would be compiled and acted on using a range of information, not just details of passengers’ ethic and racial backgrounds. Information about passengers is already voluntarily provided so this information can be used to eliminate the 60-70% of passengers who are of negligible risk.. State-of-the art screening technologies could then be applied to the remaining pool of passengers, for which less information is known. As a consequence, these individuals may be subjected to the highest level of security screening, and in some cases, prevented from flying. [3]  Philip Baum, editor of Aviation Security International, argues: "I have been an ardent supporter of passenger profiling for many years. It is the only solution that addresses the problems of the past as well as those of the future. The problem is the word “profiling” itself, as it conjures up negative connotations. A traveler’s appearance, behavior, itinerary and passport are factors to consider in effective profiling. Effective profiling is based on the analysis of the appearance and behavior of a passenger and an inspection of the traveler’s itinerary and passport; it does not and should not be based on race, religion, nationality or color of skin. We need an intelligent approach to aviation security that deploys common sense to the security checkpoint. We require highly trained, streetwise, individuals who can make risk assessments of passengers as they arrive at the airport and determine which technology should be used for screening." [4]  Intelligent, well designed and responsive profiling systems study passenger’s behavior in-situ in addition to their background and appearance. Police officers and security camera operators can be trained to recognize signs of nervous or apprehensive behavior that passengers might exhibit. Brigitte Gabriel, founder and president of ACT! for America, said in December of 2009: "We're not talking only about profiling Muslims. We need to take a lesson from the Israelis. When you go through security checkpoints in Tel Aviv airport, you have very highly trained screeners. Someone who is about to carry on a terrorist attack acts nervous, acts suspicious [under such scrutiny]." [5] Profiling would probably have picked up on would-be Christmas Day bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, who notably paid for his ticket in cash, did not have any checked luggage, had booked a one-way ticket to the United States, and claimed he was coming to a religious ceremony. [6] Together, these actions are extremely suspicious and it would have been correct, justified and indeed prudent for airport security to have investigated him on the basis that he met the profile of a possible terrorist. It was only later luck which meant that he was caught instead of succeeding in his attack, all on the basis of the absence of security profiling – fully eight years after the 9/11 attacks.  Passenger profiling has a record of success in Israel. As Thomas Sowell, senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, argues: "No country has better airport security than Israel – and no country needs it more, since Israel is the most hated target of Islamic extremist terrorists. Yet, somehow, Israeli airport security people don't have to strip passengers naked electronically or have strangers feeling their private parts. Does anyone seriously believe that we have better airport security than Israel? Is our security record better than theirs? 'Security' may be the excuse being offered for the outrageous things being done to American air travelers, but the heavy-handed arrogance and contempt for ordinary people that is the hallmark of this [G. W. Bush] administration in other areas is all too apparent in these new and invasive airport procedures. [...] What do the Israeli airport security people do that American airport security does not do? They profile. They question some individuals for more than half an hour, open up all their luggage and spread the contents on the counter - and they let others go through with scarcely a word. And it works.” [7] Therefore until such security resources are used appropriately, we will never achieve a secure air transportation system, and terrorism and its awful human consequences will remain a constant threat and fear.  [1] Nomani, Asra Q. "Airport Security: Let's Profile Muslims". The Daily Beast. 29 November 2010.   [2] Sawer, Patrick. “Muslim MP: security profiling at airports is ‘price we have to pay’”. The Telegraph. 2 January 2010.   [3] Jacobson, Sheldon H. "The Right Kind of Profiling". New York Times Room for Debate. 4 January 2010.   [4] Baum, Philip . "Common Sense Profiling Works." New York Times Room for Debate. 4 January 2010.   [5] Groening, Chad. “U.S. airport security - 'profiling' a must”. OneNewsNow. 31 December 2009.   [6] Groening, Chad. “U.S. airport security - 'profiling' a must”. OneNewsNow. 31 December 2009.   [7] Sowell, Thomas. "Profiling at airports works for Israel". The Columbus Dispatch. 24 November 2010.


If terrorists were really unintelligent and unimaginative enough to be beaten by such a blunt tool as security profiling, we would have been able to stop them long ago and would not have the difficult security situation we do now. Rather, if we introduce invasive security profiling similar to the procedures used in Israeli airports, terrorists will simply adapt their methods in order to circumvent it. Terrorists will recruit from different, non-profiled groups. They will alter their dress and train their operatives to act differently.  With respect to American air transportation, al-Qaeda already appears to be changing its tactics in response to the stricter screening and checking processes introduced by the Department for Homeland Security: since 9/11, two attempted attacks on US aviation involved a non-Arab Nigerian and a Briton with the last name of “Reid.” [1]  Terrorists can adapt in countless ways which will render security profiling not only useless but also counter-productive. Innocent men and women who fit the profiles designed by the security services are subjected to further scrutiny when passing through airports. In American airports, they are frequently removed from queues by TSA officials, segregated from other passengers and exposed to close contact body searches. Prima facie, these individuals will understand that they have been singled out because of their race or religion. This does nothing to address or rebut religious radicals’ attempts to portray America as inherently racist and imperialist, and its foreign policy as arbitrary and cynical. The resolution may serve to alienate migrant communities that could otherwise provide valuable intelligence to the security services. Members of these communities will be less likely to voice their concerns if they feel that the authorities will use the information they provide to justify further summary searches and interrogations of air passengers.  Moreover, an Israeli-style profiling system would simply not be scalable to the volume of passengers passing through major airports in America or other countries larger than Israel. As Mark Thompson argues: "I think it’s pretty clear that the reason a “profiling” system would not work and indeed has not been attempted in the US is that it’s not scalable. Israel has one major airport, which by US standards would only be “mid-sized.” Yet look at the security line at that airport, which is more befitting of Newark or Atlanta than it is of Pittsburgh or St. Louis. A good profiling system is labour-intensive in a way that our system simply does not have the capacity to implement, and would unacceptably undermine the numerous sectors of our economy that rely heavily on air transportation. And this says nothing of the direct economic costs of appropriately training and paying security officers charged with conducting the profiling. Nor, as the article above suggests, does it say anything about eliminating the bureaucratic infighting and secrecy amongst American intelligence agencies in a manner that would allow tens of thousands of airport security personnel access to the intelligence necessary to adequately do their jobs." [2]  [1] Thompson, Mark. "Profiling, Political Correctness, and Airport Security." The League of Ordinary Gentleman. 29 November 2010.   [2] Thompson, Mark. "Profiling, Political Correctness, and Airport Security." The League of Ordinary Gentleman. 29 November 2010.


Profiling is preferable to the alternatives:  Expanding the use of profiling will help to restrict the use of invasive security monitoring strategies such as body scanners and intimate, full contact pat-downs. Body-scanning and patting-down all travelers, including older disabled men and women, is an excessive, expensive and humiliating approach to passenger safety.  Many civil rights groups in addition to consumer’s rights organizations and air-travel business analysts feel very strongly that invasive security procedures violates passengers’ privacy. Profiling those individuals that are a real potential threat is a good way to avoid these problems. As Thomas Sowell argues, proponents of invasive pat-downs and body scanners “would rather have scanners look under the clothes of nuns than to detain a Jihadist imam for questioning." [1]  Alternatives to profiling are far more invasive and likely to be more offensive to Muslims than profiling would be. With broad screening of all travelers for example there is likely to be less security as security resources are directs onto people who are not a threat so offending everybody rather than just a tiny minority. For each search of a passenger who a profiler would regard as highly unlikely to engage in violent activity in plane or an airport , there is a near-negligible impact on security attention and resources. However, when this impact is accumulated over the millions of passengers who fly each year, the effect does indeed become measurable. In essence, by spending billions of dollars on scrutinizing the wrong people, security forces are depleting a reserve of resources that could be spent in screening passengers who are materially more likely to constitute a threat. [2]  Broad screening also creates long lines of people awaiting security at airports. Not only does blanket screening reduce the efficiency of airport operations, impacting on the profits of airlines and the businesses that contract with them, security queues themselves could become targets for terrorists, for example through suicide bombings designed to kill an airplane’s worth of passengers before they even get through security. By definition, pat-downs and body scanners cannot prevent such a threat (indeed they add to them by creating long lines), but profiling can, by picking up on suspicious individuals from the moment they enter the airport, or even from when they book their tickets. [3] Profiling also rightly shifts the security focus from cargo to people. Better knowing who is flying allows security forces to know which cargo (luggage) they do need to or do not need to investigate for explosives or drugs, instead of having to search all or do (ineffective) random checks. [4] Therefore security profiling is preferable to the alternatives of body scans and invasive pat-downs, both in terms of security efficacy and also in terms of sensitivity to travelers.  [1] Sowell, Thomas. "Profiling at airports works for Israel". The Columbus Dispatch. 24 November 2010.   [2] Jacobson, Sheldon H. "The Right Kind of Profiling". New York Times Room for Debate. 4 January 2010.   [3] Baum, Philip . "Common Sense Profiling Works." New York Times Room for Debate. 4 January 2010.   [4] Sela, Rafi. "Multilayered Security". New York Times, Room for Debate. 4 January 4 2010.


Terrorists have asserted justifications for their acts long before the idea of security profiling was even suggested. For example, Osama Bin Laden justified the 9/11 attacks on the grounds of the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia, US support for Israel, and sanctions against Iraq. [1] Airport security profiling will make no significant difference to terrorist grievances against the west, but could well make a significant difference to the efficacy of security. Most Muslims will continue to cooperate with Western security forces, as their interests are the same: preventing terrorism and bombings helps protect their lives and livelihoods as well. Even if the policy is disliked their cooperation will continue, as there is simply no workable alternative (short of becoming terrorists themselves, which is something which the vast, vast majority of Muslims find abhorrent and would never even consider).  [1] Plotz, David. “What does Osama Bin Laden want?”. Slate. 14 September 2001.


More screening of travellers who display suspicious behaviour does not mean no or insufficient security surrounding travellers who do not. Security profiling would simply me a part of the security operation. What it does mean is individuals who buy one-way tickets with cash and no luggage will be more closely investigated. Yes terrorists may adapt to this, but this will make it harder for them to operate (as their operatives have to act identically to normal passengers or face exposure) and increase the chances that a ‘slip-up’ of theirs will actually be noticed and investigated by airport security. Moreover it is not so easy for terrorist organisations to find ‘clean’ operatives: the process of radicalization and terrorist training is bound to bring such individuals to the attention of police or security forces at some point, meaning most such individuals will be identified as potential terrorists and observed accordingly. Security profiling could actually aid this process.


Profiling is racist:  Profiling in many ways would simply result in institutionalized racism, as Mark German argues: “racial profiling is wrong, un-American and unconstitutional. It is institutionalized racism.” [1] Mark Thompson adds: “So it’s not 'political correctness' (aka the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment) that is standing in the way of replacing full-body scans with a strong and effective profiling system: its reality. All that 'political correctness' is preventing is the implementation of an equally (and likely even more) ineffective piece of security theater in which we single out one minority group for intensive screening while giving a pass to everyone else. This would certainly annoy fewer people, but it wouldn’t make us safer and its sole benefits would be accomplished by treating an entire minority group as second-class citizens." [2]  In any legal system which claims to give its citizens equal rights or equal protection of the law, security profiling is unacceptable. Profiling will target certain groups more than others. Even innocent members of these groups are made to feel like second-class citizens, and that the government suspects them of being terrorists without evidence – simply because of who they are. These individuals will be very visibly reminded of this every time they are segregated out at airport security, while they watch other non-suspects (who will be predominantly white and Christian, or at least non-Muslim) not being subject to the same scrutiny. The non-suspects will see this as well, and this may re-enforce any notions they have that all Muslims are potential terrorists and thus are suspect. Therefore because security profiling harms certain groups of citizens in unacceptable ways, it should not be instituted.  [1] German, Michael. "Wrong and Unworkable". New York Times Room for Debate. 4 January 2010.   [2] Thompson, Mark. "Profiling, Political Correctness, and Airport Security." The League of Ordinary Gentleman. 29 November 2010.


Profiling will increase terrorism not combat it:  Profiling alienates groups needed in the fight against terrorism. Treating all Muslims as suspects, or being perceived as such, undermines efforts to gain intelligence on terrorists. Profiling the very communities we need information from to catch terrorists would be counter-productive as they would be less inclined to come forward. Umar Abdul-Muttallab’s father for example gave us such information to prevent the Dec. 25 terror plot. [1] Even if security profiling did make airport security more effective as supporters claim (although it would not) without personal intelligence and assistance the security situation will be far worse than it is now.. Normal security screening does not alienate these groups in the same way, as it is applied to everyone (and so they do not feel singled out) and it can be applied in culturally sensitive ways (for example, ensuring that pat-downs of Muslim women are always carried out only by female security officers). [2]  Profiling also gives terrorists a justification for their acts. As Michael German argues: "when we abandon our principles, we not only betray our values, we also run the risk of undermining international and community support for counterterrorism efforts by providing an injustice for terrorists to exploit as a way of justifying further acts of terrorism." [3] In general profiling contributes to an environment of fear and insecurity, in which some communities feel victimized and others feel under constant threat, leading to even more tensions and an increased risk of violence on either side. Ibrahim Hooper of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) said in December of 2009 after the Christmas Day Bomber incident: "While everyone supports robust airline security measures, racial and religious profiling are in fact counterproductive and can lead to a climate of insecurity and fear." [4] True success in preventing terrorism will require the active co-operation of Muslim communities, both at home and abroad, in identifying and isolating terrorist suspects and training groups. This cannot be achieved if it is perceived that the West regards all Muslims as terrorist suspects. The distinction which almost all Muslims currently see between themselves and the violent jihadis of the terrorist networks should be fostered, rather than sending the opposite message by implying we cannot tell the difference, or even that we believe there is no difference between them. For this reason, instituting security profiling at airports would be counter-productive, and thus should not be done.  [1] Al-Marayati, Salam. "Get the Intelligence Right". New York Times Room for Debate. 4 January 2010.   [2] Schneier, Bruce. "Profiling Makes Us Less Safe". New York Times, Room for Debate. 4 January 2010.   [3] German, Michael. "Wrong and Unworkable". New York Times Room for Debate. 4 January 2010.   [4] Groening, Chad. “U.S. airport security - 'profiling' a must”. OneNewsNow. 31 December 2009.


Profiling is ineffective at increasing security:  Terrorists simply do not conform to a neat profile. Many suspects linked to past terrorist attacks that have been apprehended or identified come from within the United States and European Union countries. Profiling does not help against individuals with names and ethnic backgrounds like Richard Reid, Jose Padilla, David Headley and Michael Finton. [1] Many terrorists have been European, Asian, African, Hispanic, and Middle Eastern, male and female, young and old. A significant number of domestic and aspiring terrorists have been found to be “clean skins” – individuals with no prior link to known fundamentalists, who have radicalised themselves by seeking out terror related materials on the internet.  Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab was Nigerian. Richard Reid, the shoe bomber, was British with a Jamaican father. Germaine Lindsay, one of the 7/7 London bombers, was Afro-Caribbean. Dirty bomb suspect Jose Padilla was Hispanic-American. The 2002 Bali terrorists were Indonesian. Timothy McVeigh was a white American, as was the Unabomber. The Chechen terrorists who blew up two Russian planes in 2004 were female. Palestinian terrorists routinely recruit 'clean' suicide bombers, and have used unsuspecting Westerners as bomb carriers. [2]  Racial profiling is a shortcut based on bias rather than evidence. Unfortunately there is no such thing as a “terrorist profile.” There was in 2005a Belgian woman who became a suicide bomber in Iraq, would profiling have picked her up? [3] It is sometimes suggested to target Muslims, reasoning that some are bound to be “radicalized.” But Islam is a global religion. Which characteristics should the security services look at to determine whether someone is a Muslim? Name? Appearance? In 2000 63% of Arab Americans were Christian and only just under a quarter were Muslim. [4]  Inevitably only certain groups will be profiled, this then leaves open the possibility that terrorist organisations will simply recruit from other ones, as Michael German (a former FBI agent) argues: “Racial profiling is also unworkable. Once aware of national profiling, terrorists will simply use people from “non-profiled” countries or origins, like FBI most-wanted Qaeda suspect Adam Gadahn, an American. What will we do? Keep adding more countries to the list of 14 until we’ve covered the whole globe?" [5]  Terrorists can easily out manoeuvre profiling systems. Profiling creates two paths through airport security: one with less scrutiny and one with more. Terrorists will then want to take the path with less scrutiny. Once a terrorist group works out the profile they will be able to get through airport security with the minimum level of screening every time. [6] Massoud Shadjareh (the chairman of the Islamic Human Rights Commission,) argues: " What's to stop them dressing up as orthodox Jews in order to evade profiling-based searches?" [7] Moreover, the model of security practices, including profiling, in Israel is not applicable to other Western nations, such as the United States. Terrorists that threaten Israel are from well organised local groups, and from a particular group. America on the other hand faces groups from around the world. [8] This makes profiling far more efficacious in Israel and much less so in the United States, for example.  [1] Al-Marayati, Salam. "Get the Intelligence Right". New York Times Room for Debate. 4 January 2010.   [2] Schneier, Bruce. "Profiling Makes Us Less Safe". New York Times, Room for Debate. 4 January 2010.   [3] German, Michael. "Wrong and Unworkable". New York Times Room for Debate. 4 January 2010.   [4] World Directory of Minorities, ‘Arab and other Middle Eastern Americans’,   [5] German, Michael. "Wrong and Unworkable". New York Times Room for Debate. 4 January 2010.   [6] Schneier, Bruce. "Profiling Makes Us Less Safe". New York Times, Room for Debate. 4 January 2010.   [7] Sawer, Patrick. “Muslim MP: security profiling at airports is ‘price we have to pay’”. The Telegraph. 2 January 2010.   [8] Thompson, Mark. "Profiling, Political Correctness, and Airport Security." The League of Ordinary Gentleman. 29 November 2010.


As conservative columnist Deroy Murdock put it: “We are not arguing that the TSA should send anyone named Mohammad to be waterboarded somewhere between the first-class lounge and the Pizza Hut.” [1] There is simply no reason why security profiling necessarily has to be, or be perceived as, racist or targeted against certain groups. The vast majority of Muslim travellers do not display the kinds of suspicious behaviour which profiling will largely be based on, there will be no reason for them to seem nervous, and so will not be negatively impacted: indeed they will benefit by not being forced to submit to invasive pat-downs or body scans. They will similarly benefit from being safer in the air, as security profiling will improve the efficacy of airport security and decrease the chances of a terrorist attack which would kill Muslim and non-Muslim passengers alike. If profiling does end up resulting in more of a particular ethnic group being checked then this will not be because the profiling is racist but because these people are acting suspicious – at very most the ethnic profile would be one among many factors for deciding who should submit to greater security.  [1] Nomani, Asra Q. "Airport Security: Let's Profile Muslims". The Daily Beast. 29 November 2010.


The distribution of the vote is more important than the percentages for each candidate. The entire point of having the electoral college is to that it can act as a check on the majority vote is to ensure that the candidate who is best suited and had the broadest amount of support wins the presidency. If it was simply determined by popular vote than certain regions of the country would have a greater influence on the outcome of who won. The electoral college acts as a counterbalance to that.


The electoral college violates the democratic principle that the winner should be the candidate receiving the most votes.  In 1824, 1876, 1888, 2000, and probably 1960, the candidate receiving the most votes for president lost the election [1] .  This occurs because all but two states award all their electoral votes to the candidate winning a plurality in the state; because all states receive two electoral votes corresponding to their two US senators; because the number of House seats (which serve as the basis of the remaining electoral votes) often poorly match the population of the state; because states cast electoral votes no matter how many people actually vote; and because the size of the House is arbitrary.  [1] Factcheck.org, ‘Presidents Winning Without Popular Vote’, Annenberg Public Policy Center, 24 March 2008,


No one defends this aspect of the electoral college. It is indefensible.  However, it is important to note that the election has never come to the House of Representatives choosing the president. It is merely a plan of last resort to ensure that there is a president.


The electoral college weakens incentives for voting and party building.  There is no incentive for candidates to mobilize voters in states they are sure to win – or sure to lose, and voters have little incentive to vote in noncompetitive states where their vote is likely not to matter.  Some states like Texas just have a fairly predictable voting record- they have voted republican 9 out of the last 10 presidential elections. Democratic presidential candidates do not spend much time in Texas for that reason. [1]  [1] “Texas” 270 to Win.


The electoral college violates the democratic principle of equality in voting  Under the electoral college, all votes do not count equally. Voters in some states have more say in selecting the president than voters in other states.  For example, California has 55 electoral college votes, while Delaware only get 3 votes. There is not equality in that, every state should be equal, California for voting purposes is no more important that Delaware. [1]  [1] Electoral Map. Wikipedia. [Online] Available at:


The US is not a pure democracy. The electoral college is one of the checks on majority rule. It is not violating the principle of equality of voting, because it gives every state a proportional voice based on their population.  The states that have more of a say also have a larger population of voters, therefore it is proportional. California has the largest population for any state, and therefore gets the largest number of votes in the electoral college.


This argument is suggestion that there is simply a strategy behind elections- which is true for every election. The electoral college framework does make a candidate have to acquire a number of states, in order to win, and while there may be some states that it is not the best use of time and resources to campaign as hard in.  But this does require candidates have a broad base of support in order to win the presidency.


The propositions argument is not only a logical fallacy, but also discourages democracy.  It is illogical to argue that because Ralph Nader got a few votes in New Hampshire and Florida that if he was not on ballot they would have voted for Al Gore instead.  Furthermore, the American electoral framework is comprised almost exclusively of a two party system, and any candidate who runs on a third party ballot needs to be given extra support just to have any chance at all of even securing just a few votes.


If no candidate receives a majority of the electoral vote, the House of Representatives chooses the president, with each state receiving one vote.  This provision allows the 7 smallest states with a population of about 4.9 million to outvote the 6 largest states with a population of 119 million. [1] This is blatently unfair.  [1] Congress, XII - Manner of Choosing a President and Vice-President, 27 July 1804,


The electoral college allows small third parties to tip the balance in a state and distort the preferences of the voters.  In 2000, Ralph Nader siphoned a few votes from Al Gore in New Hampshire and Florida, costing Gore victories and thus the election. Nevertheless, Gore was the preferred choice of voters in a match up with George W. Bush. [1]  [1] Archives.gov, ‘Historical Election Results’, ‘Electoral College Box Scores 1789-1996’,


The electoral college encourages third parties.  Under the electoral college, a third party with regional support can win something: a state. The winner take all aspect of direct election of the president with no runoff discourages third parties because they have to come in first to win anything.


There is no such thing as a small state interest. States do not embody coherent, unified interests, nor do they require protection. The Constitution places many constraints on the actions of simple majorities, and the Senate provides extraordinary representation to small states. Moreover, candidates ignore most small states in their campaigns.


The electoral college is an essential bulwark of federalism.  The electoral college emphasizing the role of states, and abolishing it would weaken federalism. This system reinforces the division and sharing of powers between the states and the national government. Without it the national government would have much greater power over the state governments, and the voice of the people would be quieter. The electoral college is essential to preserving the power of individuals through their state.  Additionally, the Electoral College helps reinforce stable institutions that are essential for maintaining a political regime and preserving a free society. [1]  [1] England, Trent. “What is ‘National Popular Vote’?” Save Our States.


The electoral college forces candidates to win broad coalitions across the country, encouraging national harmony.  In direct election of the president, candidates might appeal to clusters of voters, whose votes could be aggregated across states and regions, perhaps representing only one strata of society.


Casting votes by state forces candidates to be attentive to local interests, which they would otherwise ignore in a national campaign.  The electoral college is helping promote democracy through implementing a mechanism that make candidates pay attention to local issues, and actually do what they are elected to do- serve the interests of their constituents.  A presidential candidate is of course going to focus on a more national level interest, but in order to visit and campaign across the country, the candidate must be at least aware of the issues that of particular interest to the local area.


The electoral college inhibits the emergence of third parties and thus acts as a bulwark against extremist candidates.  The founding fathers had a reason to fear the emergence of extremist parties. A modern day example is with Rwanda. When they gained a multiparty democracy, without checks on majority rule, it allowed for extremist parties to enter politics and made possible the use of public resources to manipulate the population which set the necessary precondition of ethnic hatred that enabled the genocide to occur [1] .  [1] Mamdani, M., 2001. When Victims Become Killers. Princeton N.J.: Princeton University Press. p209


Candidates ignore large areas of the country in their campaigns. Moreover, George W. Bush lost most major demographic groups in winning election in 2000 under the electoral college.


The electoral college prevents a tyranny of the majority.  The interests of states, especially small states, would be lost in a majoritarian national campaign. The electoral college forces candidates to be attentive to state interests.  When the founding fathers created the electoral college it was with the many purposes in mind, but the tyranny of the masses is the most appropriate in mind here. It is important to remember the timeframe that the US was created in, there was not a very high literacy rate, and it would become very easy without a check on majority rule for someone to manipulate the population when entering power [1] .  [1] United States of America, 1787. The Constitution of the United States. [Online] Available at:  [Accessed 27 April 2012].


Candidates do not focus on local interests because of the electoral college. The evidence is overwhelming. Candidates do not campaign in most states, nor do they run advertisements in them. Instead, the electoral college provides incentives to focus on competitive states, especially large competitive states. Moreover, candidates do not focus on local interests in the states they do visit.  We do not need a presidency responsive to parochial interests in a system that is already prone to gridlock and which offers minority interests extraordinary access to policymakers and opportunities to thwart policies they oppose.


The electoral college is not a federal principle. Federalism was not mentioned at the Constitutional Convention in relation to the electoral college. The electoral college does not enhance the power or sovereignty of states. Federalism is based on representation in Congress and the Constitution’s allocation of powers to the states, not on the electoral college.


Politicians are not true stand-ins. They represent the interests of the people on a policy basis not on the basis of their personal lives. Trying to divine personalities in politicians inevitably results in misallocation of the limited resources of time and energy people can generally spend informing themselves about candidates. Rather, the focus of voters should be drawn to the issues, which is where true policy comes from. Of course temperament and actions in one’s private life may be an indicator to how the politician will react but their ideology and policy positions are likely to be a much more certain indicator. Focus on private lives only obscures the truth of policies and reduces the quality of representation as a result.


Citizens have a right to know who is being elected to represent them  Beyond the discussion of the balancing of the right to privacy, it is important to understand the nature of representatives as stand-ins for the citizens who elect them. In other words, politicians are surrogates. Their duty is to represent the people in public life across all issues and policies. [1] Yet it is impossible to ascertain the desires of the citizens on all issues in the course of an election campaign. Even harder is to understand political decision-making in a context that had not existed at the time of the election. For example, if a war was to begin suddenly in a country that had not expected any conflict and had not elected representatives on the basis of how they stood on fighting this war. But that is exactly why politicians are elected as much for who they are as what their avowed policy aims are. We elect politicians who we believe will act best under such changing conditions; the ‘3 am phone call’, how a candidate will react in a crisis, is often a major issue in U.S. Presidential elections and temperament is often the only way to judge this. [2] Mitt Romney as candidate in the 2012 election was widely considered to have lost out to Obama on this measure. [3] Understanding the personal lives of politicians allows voters to elect one who best represents them in the sense of being able to act in their place in a changing world. Thus it is critical for the good electoral decision-making that the right to privacy of politicians be infringed.  [1] Hughs, J. “Does the Public Really Have the Right to Know About Politicians’ Private Lives”. University of Phoenix Online. 27 June 2011,   [2] Fallows, James, “Mitt Romney Drops His 3 a.m. Phone Call”, the Atlantic, 12 September 2012,   [3] Drum, Kevin, “Obama Wins the 3 a.m. Phone Call Test”, Mother Jones, 14 October 2012,


All intense scrutiny will do is make fewer people be willing to enter politics. This does not mean the most capable will stay, only those with a higher tolerance for media intrusion, and those with a talent for concealment and spin. The result is not better governance, because the pool of potential leaders is reduced by the added pressures of losing all hope of privacy. Loss of the right privacy means worse governance.


The right to privacy is not absolute and is sacrificed in standing for public office  A right such as that to privacy is not absolute. Rights are general statements of principle that are then caveated and curtailed in the interests of society. When an individual seeks elevation to public office, he or she must accept that the role is a special one in society. As the representative of the people, the politician is more than just the holder of a job appointed by the people, but is the elected servant, whose duty is to lead. Leadership includes leading by example as well as simply directing policy. It is a strange relationship, and it is one that demands the utmost confidence in the holder. But confidence can only be developed through increased scrutiny and transparency. This means understanding the private life of the politician, since it so often informs their public life. Thus, when citizens place their political power in the hands of an elected representative, they gain the reciprocal right over that representative to have his or her life and character laid bare for their approval. This is the only way true representativeness may be achieved.


Even if one concedes that such rights are not entirely sacrosanct, it is important to recognise that rights should apply universally and should still be defended. The right to privacy is also important, and must include politicians who, while fulfilling an important societal role, are not so special as to merit significant curtailment of rights. So long as politicians do their duty by representing the interests of those that elected them in a legislative framework, they are fulfilling their end of the covenant with the people, leaving no room for any nebulous additional right of citizens over politicians. They are elected to do a job not for their life.


The power structures that command people are best challenged through attention to policy and shaping the discourse in a positive manner. Attention to private lives is simply salacious and does nothing to actually forward the cause of groups outside the elite. In fact, focus on the foibles of the few serves only to confuse and misdirect public sentiment away from where it might do the most good in the furtherance of change. If anything deserves intense scrutiny it is the power structures themselves, such as Oxbridge in the United Kingdom, not on the individuals who are mere products of it.


Heavy scrutiny forces politicians to dedicate themselves fully to their public service  When politicians see themselves constantly under the lens of public scrutiny, they are essentially forced to dedicate themselves wholesale to their duties as representatives. They are disincentivized in the extreme to pursue any transgressive or hypocritical activities behind closed doors, resulting in more energy dedicated to legislating, and less to lining their pockets or chasing interns, since the added risk of being discovered increases the cost of trying to conceal their foibles. [1] Having a culture of scrutiny of politicians private lives will mean those who most see their work as a public service and so will be dedicated to it will be the ones who seek to become politicians. Dominique Strauss-Kahn’s lurid sex life has thrown light on the sexual misconduct rife in French politics and has actually sparked a major effort to reform the system and a change to a more demanding culture towards politicians. [2] Politicians are human, after all, and susceptible to the base human urges that power unchecked is wont to accommodate. A powerful probe into politicians’ private lives can only serve the cause of better governance.  [1] Hughs, J. “Does the Public Really Have the Right to Know About Politicians’ Private Lives”. University of Phoenix Online. 27 June 2011,   [2] Clifford, C. and Vandoorne, S. “Scandals Put a Spotlight on France’s Hidden Sexism, Privacy Laws”. CNN. 3 June 2011,


Heavy scrutiny serves to challenge existing power structures  The power structures that command peoples’ lives are often difficult to identify. While there are usually multiple candidates to choose from at election time, in many polities they all tend to come out from small-based elite. Oxford and Cambridge, for example, serve as the incubators of power in the United Kingdom. They hold vastly disproportionate sway in composition of Parliament and other political posts, and tend to dominate the front benches of all the parties. What media scrutiny, particularly with the advent of new media, has served to be is a massive check on entrenched elites. They challenge them in their lofty offices and strike at their very hearts when they behave in ways inappropriate or hypocritical. [1] This scrutiny is often one of the only pure democratic powers available to ordinary people, even in a liberal democracy.  [1] Thompson, J. 2011. “Shifting Boundaries of Public and Private Life”. Theory Culture Society 28(4): 49-70.


Even if the media occasionally distracts from more pressing issues, it does not make the issues attending politicians’ private lives entirely unimportant. The media can be admonished, as it was in the case of Lewinski, to stop getting overly fixated. As society’s watchdog, the media owes a duty to the people to provide as much information as possible, including information about their representatives’ private lives. Without that information they would never be able to adequately gauge who might best represent their interests.


Even if privacy is a fundamental human right, it is certainly not an absolute one. When the authorities have probable cause they can search the property, residence, and computers of suspects in pursuit of greater societal justice. Politicians are not simply doing a job for the electorate they are in a special position as the effective embodiment of the people’s will, and as a result the powers they wield, which is far vaster than that of any private agent, demands a higher level of scrutiny into their backgrounds, which means looking into their private lives. This is exactly the same as outside politics; the more senior and powerful the job the more rigorous the checking of the qualifications and background of the candidate must be.


Fixating on personal lives results in infringing the rights of more than just the politicians themselves  Politicians, like all people, are not islands. They have loved ones and families. When a citizen chooses to offer him or herself up as a candidate for office he or she takes on many responsibilities. However, the politician’s family can never be considered to have wholly consented to the arrangement, even if they support them in the election. They are in many ways innocent bystanders, yet when politicians are treated as having no freedom of privacy, their families too are stripped of that right unjustly. [1] Thus, the right to privacy is worth protecting for politicians even if it could be shown that they had no real personal right to such respect. Rights exist in part to protect innocent parties, and the families of politicians are innocent, and would undoubtedly be prime victims of limitless media intervention. The recent ads produced by the National Rifle Association that target President Obama’s daughters and their security detail has dragged girls who did not choose to be the president’s daughters into the spotlight. [2] Additionally, the fear of scrutiny of family might well have a serious chilling effect on anyone who might seek public office, resulting in a worse candidate pool, harming everyone.  [1] Privacy International. “Privacy as a Political Right”. Index on Censorship 2010 39(1): 58-68.   [2] AFP, “White House slams NRA ad targeting Obama daughters”, Google News, 16 January 2013,