In his awkward, but engaged speech, Jefferson Smith proposed a Bill that was supposed to fund an establishing of a national boys camp. According to Smith, the camp could be funded by the United States Treasury; this fund should have been distributed in the form of a loan (Mr. Smith goes to Washington 1939). Although the Bill itself seemed to be an excellent idea and a good investment, Mr. Smith failed to present the project successfully. To succeed, he should have submitted the plan of the project more precisely. For example, the goals of the proposal should have been mentioned. Mr. Smith’s purpose of this camp is stated as “bringing together boys of all walks of life”, but it is doubtful that such proposal would be considered seriously (Mr. Smith goes to Washington 1939). Instead, Mr. Smith should have stressed how important it is for young adolescents to learn together with the peers, form and shape their social skills, comprehend the importance of support and friendship. Moreover, Mr. Smith could have also pointed out that the boys who visited the camp would become better team players and that such experience would help them in their adult life.
As for the “efficient sum” in the form of a loan, there are at least two issues that Mr. Smith did not consider. First, he did not name the particular sum he expected to receive. Second, he did not explain how exactly this sum would be returned to the United States Treasury. Being more persuasive and accurate would have helped Mr. Smith during the proposal of the Bill. Although he did mention that the sum would be returned in “contributions”, he did not specify what kind of contributions the Senate should expect. For example, the boys that visit the camp might become influential politicians or experienced leaders, or maybe they will be diligent citizens who always pay their taxes and are interested in the development of their community. Being more specific means presenting the exact clientele of the project (e.g. explain how old the boys should be to visit the camp, what will they do there, how they are going to be engaged in the life of the community, etc.). If Mr. Smith decided to present such project personally, it implies that he had experience with the clientele. He should have explained what experience he had gained and what he was planning to implement in the project.
When Mr. Smith stated that “boys of all creeds, kinds, and positions” would visit the camp, he did not explain what advantages this camp had for boys from vulnerable groups, or for disabled boys, of for boys from families with financial difficulties. However, such details are important for the funding source because through these details the source will understand what population groups the project is targeting and what value this project might have. The problem that the project is aiming to approach is also not stated; it is not even mentioned by Mr. Smith. Since the funding source did not receive any explanations or plans of the project, it refused to fund it.
At last, Mr. Smith did not address the resources, available for his project. If he had mentioned, for example, that the parents of the boys were also willing to participate, or that the boys would contribute to the development of the camp, he might have received more attention from the funding source. Collaboration with local recourses is a significant advantage for any project, and it can influence the final decision of the funding source.
Reference
Capra, M. (Executive Producer). (1939). Mr. Smith goes to Washington [DVD]. Culver City, CA: Sony Pictures Home Entertainment.