By Brody Mullins
The Wall Street Journal (Print)
This article's subtitle states: "Campaign-finance laws can't stop the rich and powerful from influencing elections". Such subtitle basically sums up the authors message for the entire story. He opens up with giving a background about how the government created rules on how much citizens could donate to particular candidates for their campaigns. He then introduces his own opinion with a rhetoric question asking why all the sudden it seems that it is all changing. He then continues with the rhetoric question answering it with "It's an excellent question...and one that will surely be discussed by policymakers...no matter who wins in November" which introduces the rest of his article. He establishes his trustworthiness by giving background information dating back to the 1970's with data and statistics. When reading the article, there is no question to whether or not he is biased to one political party or another because of his ability to appear on both sides of the argument. He gets his point across by the end of the article stating that he believes that the rules will change and laws will be removed because of the system of aid in campaigns ending with a powerful closing sentence leaving the reader worried and anxious about the election.
No comments:
Post a Comment