A penny for your thoughts, $26M for your vote

Sunday, Sen. Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign announced that it has raised an astonishing $26 million for her presidential campaign, a record number for a Democratic primary candidate at this stage of the game. Which raises the question: Is it unfair to let big-name candidates power their way to victory through their donors? Would public financing of elections level the playing field?

Nothing’s wrong with our current election system – if you like popularity contests. If anything stands in the way of democracy in the United States, it’s the fact that candidates can glide straight to the top by going to the party faithful and collecting tribute, like feudal lords. Party favorites like Clinton, with their well-oiled connections, sweep right past would-be tribunes of the people like Howard Dean. Liberals tend to favor simply making these exchanges public, but the only real solution is public financing. Conservatives may shrink from letting the government subsidize political speech, but some things ought not to be for sale even in a free market.

– Justyn Dillingham is copy chief for the Arizona Daily Wildcat and is a junior majoring in political science and history.

Politics isn’t about winning votes; it’s about winning donors. Every politico knows this, as do most Americans. While some suggest public provision of campaign funds as the solution (as if this were the problem in the first place), thus creating a more “”civil”” campaign season, I say no such thing. Presidential elections are just too damn entertaining to be relegated to tightwad status. Until voters decide to vote on issues, not catchy campaign ads, limiting the largesse by giving taxpayer dollars to any two-bit person with ambition is not a sensible solution. I much prefer watching the grown-ups play nasty with millions of dollars.

– Matt Stone is a senior majoring in international studies and economics.

Dastardly day care

According to the largest and longest running study ever done on American children, children who spend their pre-school years in day care have more behavior problems in elementary school. The finding is another shot in the debate between families who have one parent stay home and families who put their children in day care, either by choice or by necessity. How important are studies like these when planning for future careers and families?

With the information from this new study, it is clear that one or both parents need to drastically reduce their working hours, at least while the child is young. In the family studies field, it has been shown time and time again that the first five years of life are the most crucial. Furthermore, more than four hours of day care, no matter the quality, can have severe effects on childhood development. It may seem cold, but if your current situation requires a child to be placed in day care all day, it is not the right time to have a child.

– Jessica Wertz is a senior majoring in psychology and family studies and human development.

Only upper-middle-class parents have the luxury of worrying whether day care will turn little Tyler into an unruly fourth-grader. A single mother who rides the bus to her job at Wal-Mart takes whatever affordable day care she can find. The lucky parents can be dreadfully judgmental, probably because of guilt about their own decisions and jealousy of anyone who chooses differently. This study, as usual, has mixed results, but ultimately it doesn’t matter. You can’t know what is right for your family until you actually must decide. And truthfully, you will never know if you’re right. Such are the joys of being a parent.

– Shane Ham is a first-year law student and the father of an adorable 2-year-old daughter.