Should Politicians be Allowed to Advertise?

J7.

J7.

CAGiversary!
Feedback
6 (100%)
Should politicians be allowed to advertise?

Like always, all I see leading up to the elections are tv ads from politicians stating horrible things about each other and great things about themselves. This does nothing to help me make an educated choice. It makes me question the integrity of every politician involved in any ad, whether they are being targeted or doing the targeting. I say make advertising for office illegal and require interviews and debates between those running for local positions. Those who actually care about voting for the right person would pay attention to make an informed choice and those that do not can not be misled by ads.
 
I don't like the ads, but what really pisses me off is when these people rope their kids into them. Kids too young to even know wtf is going on.
 
Do I like political ads? No.
Should they be illegal? No.
Freedom of speech, rah, rah...

Probably, the best thing out of most political ads is they tell you something about the people who endorse them.
 
Good points guys. I don't know whether or not it would violate freedom of speech as long as they could say what they want to outside of ads. It's like censoring curse words or pornography on tv. I swear these ads are damaging to my health ;) every time they come on I basically drown them out without even doing so on purpose, they're just too phony, all of them.
 
Money is not speech, even if the Supreme Court disagrees.

These are sad times for the democratic republic, but wonderful times for the corpocracy.
 
Some are getting down right silly, not in their message necessarily, but the ad itself. Some seem like they should be aired during the Saturday morning cartoons.
 
Ridiculous stupid question b/c of 1st Amendment.

Better question would be should 3rd parties be allowed to spend unlimited amounts of money to attack candidates.
 
I don't understand why people say no... the better question to repond "no" to is whether or not they should be allowed to spend multi-millions on ad campaigns that are garbage... Of COURSE they should be able to advertise. Without advertisements, how would one learn of a candidate? Bigger candidates will get coverage and stuff, but lower offices will get crapped on by media.

There should be a cap to campaign budgets. I would vote for the person who could honestly campaign on the fact that their campaign proceeds went to charities instead of slander ads. Spend 10% on advertising your opinion on the issues, don't mention your rivals at all, and spend the other 90% showing your support on topics/issues. Show you're serious about it.
 
Politicians should be allowed to advertise. Not really a vs. issue since you won't find one person that wants to repeal the 1st Amendment here.
 
I don't really have an issue with the campaigns they run now because I tend to not listen. It's not like they really change my opinion. I just wonder who effective these ads could possibly be. Kind of like Coke advertising... spend millions of dollars, but at this point, Democrats will vote Dem. and Reps with vote Rep. If you're undecided, you're not going to vote based on someone bringing up a speeding ticket you had... and if you get those votes, was it worth millions for an extra 500 - 1000 votes? I seriously wonder if one of the best raquets is to be a "campaign planner".... it's not like you need an original thought in the world given the way the system works now.
 
[quote name='speedracer']I just wish we could find a better way to debate. The formats they use suck balls.[/QUOTE]

I agree but they should still be able to advertise on TV and in the newspaper.
 
[quote name='Retom7']I don't understand why people say no... the better question to repond "no" to is whether or not they should be allowed to spend multi-millions on ad campaigns that are garbage... Of COURSE they should be able to advertise. Without advertisements, how would one learn of a candidate? Bigger candidates will get coverage and stuff, but lower offices will get crapped on by media.

There should be a cap to campaign budgets. I would vote for the person who could honestly campaign on the fact that their campaign proceeds went to charities instead of slander ads. Spend 10% on advertising your opinion on the issues, don't mention your rivals at all, and spend the other 90% showing your support on topics/issues. Show you're serious about it.[/QUOTE]

How do you go about determining which ads are garbage and which are not? Often ads are true or false but they're extensions of the truth or falseness. How would one learn? Have interviews and debates, where the candidate has to answer questions about their history, views, and policy plans. Bigger candidates raise more money and have more ads... with interviews and debates they both get an equal chance.

There already are candidates who agree to lower budgets both on purpose or because they can't afford it. What ends up happening is they're not noticed as much. Even when they agree to not mention their rivals, one ends up doing it and then they both do it.

With interviews the interviewer gets to direct what goes on and same with debates where it is like a dual interview. Candidates would have to answer the same questions and do so in public without hiding behind an advertisement. You can tell a lot about someone's views when they have to look you in the face.

I agree about charity. It's ridiculous that politicians are spending all this money on themselves to get themselves a cushy job, giving the money to large corporations, when they could be giving it to people who need it. After all, they're supposed to be working for the people.

[quote name='IRHari']Ridiculous stupid question b/c of 1st Amendment.

Better question would be should 3rd parties be allowed to spend unlimited amounts of money to attack candidates.[/QUOTE]

If they still have other avenues for spreading their message, is it really against the 1st Amendment? How is censorship against other things being advertised allowed then?

Should the 1st Amendment always be held sacred and never be revised? Times have changed. We can't live forever by an old code that was made without knowledge of current day practices.

What about the fact that some candidates are super rich and others are not?

I would say with confidence that their advertisements are doing more damage than they are good. If policy leads to that, perhaps policy should be looked at.
 
Public funding of campaigns is the only ideal method.

So many of you - on all sides - are upset at the caliber of people who run for office, what they represent, and what they do once elected. As long as individuals can finance their own campaigns, wholly unqualified persons like Linda McMahon in CT can simply outspend, instead of outdebate, people on their own party and create a false sense of qualification to the public. Add the Citizens United ruling on top of that, and you have a recipe for perpetual disaster.

Public financing for campaigns now; in the interim, close legal loopholes that allow third parties to make political advertisements *without* disclosing their donor sources. That's positively shameful and contrary to democracy.

It's not about advertising versus not advertising, it's about how campaign finance laws have enforced the corporate dominance of our government.
 
I would like to see some kind of accountability for political advertisements.

For example, if some guy runs for office under the premise that he's going to send a manned mission to Mars, then he makes no real effort to do so, he should be held accountable in the same way that if a store runs an ad for something they don't have, they can be held accountable.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']It's not about advertising versus not advertising, it's about how campaign finance laws have enforced the corporate dominance of our government.[/QUOTE]

Exactly. Perfect example: Interstate Recognition of Notarizations Act of 2010

You know the thing that was rushed through Congress before they left? Try looking around the internet for a roll call to find who voted for it. Accountability at it's finest. "This place is owned by the banks"

[quote name='J7.']If they still have other avenues for spreading their message, is it really against the 1st Amendment? How is censorship against other things being advertised allowed then?[/QUOTE]

Yes, it really is. When voting results in nicotine addiction and lung cancer lemme know.

[quote name='J7.']Should the 1st Amendment always be held sacred and never be revised? Times have changed. We can't live forever by an old code that was made without knowledge of current day practices.[/QUOTE]

Yes, it should never be revised. The courts are constantly interpreting its applicability; yelling fire in a theater, death threats, slander/libel, etc. are not protected speech.

The policy you are advocating is horrifying. 'Vote for Harvey Dent' shouldn't be protected by the 1st Amendment? Jesus.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I would like to see some kind of accountability for political advertisements.

For example, if some guy runs for office under the premise that he's going to send a manned mission to Mars, then he makes no real effort to do so, he should be held accountable in the same way that if a store runs an ad for something they don't have, they can be held accountable.[/QUOTE]

I know you've had some doozies, but even for you that's a really dumb idea.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']That bill deserves a thread of its own.

Thank god we have a Democrat in office, otherwise it wouldn't have been vetoed.[/QUOTE]

Thank god there's Democratic control of the House and Senate, otherwise it never would have passed.

Oh, wait...
 
[quote name='IRHari']
Try looking around the internet for a roll call to find who voted for it. .[/QUOTE]

I havent been able to find this. Is it possible to pass something without voting if theres unanimous consent or something? Let me know what you turn up. I'd like to send some letters.
 
Of course they should be allowed to advertise.

What needs fixed is campaign financing. It needs to be super strictly regulated, we need MUCH smaller limits on how much can be spent on advertising etc.

One shouldn't need the ability to raise millions to run for federal office--or even state office many places. It stacks the deck heavily in the favor of people who already have a ton of money to get such efforts started and along with the poor regulation of campaing contributions the corporacray is in full swing.
 
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']I havent been able to find this. Is it possible to pass something without voting if theres unanimous consent or something? Let me know what you turn up. I'd like to send some letters.[/QUOTE]

Heh yeah that's my point about no accountability. Apparently they did it with a voice vote so there's no record of who voted for it and who didn't. Some very shady shit going on here.
 
[quote name='Clak']You know how easy it is to become a notary? You pay a fee and take a test, that's it.[/QUOTE]

Notaries are technically held liable if they allow something shady through, the bill seems innocuous at first glance but it basically says a state has to accept notarized documents from any states and iirc whatever electronically notarized means.

So said documents have to be accepted but good luck locating and prosecuting across state lines without getting a whole bunch of federal agencies involved.

IR:
Heh yeah that's my point about no accountability. Apparently they did it with a voice vote so there's no record of who voted for it and who didn't. Some very shady shit going on here.
Click to expand...

At this point there isn't much choice, either neuter some of the arcane rules and enshrined procedural douchebaggery or abolish the Senate outright.
 
Oh I know that, I'm just saying that the process of becoming one doesn't instill a lot of confidence. I doubt all notaries are all that discriminating in what they notarize. Like you said, it will be harder to hold them liable.
 
[quote name='IRHari']Heh yeah that's my point about no accountability. Apparently they did it with a voice vote so there's no record of who voted for it and who didn't. Some very shady shit going on here.[/QUOTE]
Well, since it passed without debate, I can go ahead and berate anyone for at least that much. I know it may feel hopeless to petition your representatives, but it really is important to do so regardless.
 
[quote name='IRHari']Heh yeah that's my point about no accountability. Apparently they did it with a voice vote so there's no record of who voted for it and who didn't. Some very shady shit going on here.[/QUOTE]

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6955YX20101006

After languishing for months in the Senate Judiciary Committee, the bill passed the Senate with lightning speed and with hardly any public awareness of the bill's existence on September 27, the day before the Senate recessed for midterm election campaign.

The bill's approval involved invocation of a special procedure. Democratic Senator Robert Casey, shepherding last-minute legislation on behalf of the Senate leadership, had the bill taken away from the Senate Judiciary committee, which hadn't acted on it.

The full Senate then immediately passed the bill without debate, by unanimous consent.
Click to expand...
 
I've contacted a few representatives about that bill. The only thing that even makes a remote amount of sense is that the progressive caucus knew that the president would veto it in advance and went ahead with the procedure to go with a voice vote. I'm gonna try to get to the bottom of this.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Of course they should be allowed to advertise.

What needs fixed is campaign financing. It needs to be super strictly regulated, we need MUCH smaller limits on how much can be spent on advertising etc.

One shouldn't need the ability to raise millions to run for federal office--or even state office many places. It stacks the deck heavily in the favor of people who already have a ton of money to get such efforts started and along with the poor regulation of campaing contributions the corporacray is in full swing.[/QUOTE]

I like what you are saying. But what's to stop other separate entities advertising for a candidate? Should large corporations be barred from financing their own advertising of any candidate?


@ other comments in this thread, the notion of somehow "qualifying" candidates is disgusting. How is someone like george washington qualified more than successful business people?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']
The full Senate then immediately passed the bill without debate, by unanimous consent.[/QUOTE]

Doesn't unanimous consent mean no one objected to bringing the bill to the floor for a vote? You could bring the bill onto the floor with no one objecting (aka unanimous consent) and they're still not voting on passing the actual debate.

Someone explain to me if I'm wrong, I thought unanimous consent only applied to bringing the bill to the floor and not the passage of the actual bill.

Still concerning that no one objected to holding a vote on this crappy bill.

EDIT:
Apr 27, 2010: This bill passed in the House of Representatives by voice vote. A record of each representative’s position was not kept.
Sep 27, 2010: This bill passed in the Senate by Unanimous Consent. A record of each senator’s position was not kept.
 
http://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/unanimous_consent.htm

A Senator may request unanimous consent on the floor to set aside a specified rule of procedure so as to expedite proceedings. If no Senator objects, the Senate permits the action, but if any one Senator objects, the request is rejected.
Click to expand...

Maybe it's Reuter's poor choice of words, if to say "passed the bill by unanimous consent" implies to me that the bill was "passed" without a vote or without anyone objecting.

Either way, it's concerning that any bill (especially one like this) can be passed without any kind of record as to who voted for or against it. Seriously, in this day and age, each Congressman/woman should have a little electronic buzzer that lets them vote "Yay" or "Nay" (Or, I suppose, "Present"...) and every time one of those buttons are pushed, it should be recorded for the world to see.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']I like what you are saying. But what's to stop other separate entities advertising for a candidate? Should large corporations be barred from financing their own advertising of any candidate?[/QUOTE]

That gets into ugly territory. If a group of people want to, say, support a candidate that is opposed to letting Walmart open a store in TownX, should they be allowed to pool their resources toward getting this candidate elected? Likewise, if a group of people want to support a candidate that is in favor of letting Walmart open a store in TownX, should they be allowed to pool their resources in favor of this candidate? Should it matter if every single one of the people in this second group just happen to have Walmart name badges?
 
Yeah Reuters should make it a bit more clear, as I really don't think thats what 'ptbbuc' means. Agree with your 2nd point, it only reinforces what Dick Durbin said, 'the banks own this place'.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Public funding of campaigns is the only ideal method.

So many of you - on all sides - are upset at the caliber of people who run for office, what they represent, and what they do once elected. As long as individuals can finance their own campaigns, wholly unqualified persons like Linda McMahon in CT can simply outspend, instead of outdebate, people on their own party and create a false sense of qualification to the public. Add the Citizens United ruling on top of that, and you have a recipe for perpetual disaster.

Public financing for campaigns now; in the interim, close legal loopholes that allow third parties to make political advertisements *without* disclosing their donor sources. That's positively shameful and contrary to democracy.

It's not about advertising versus not advertising, it's about how campaign finance laws have enforced the corporate dominance of our government.[/QUOTE]

Public financing is open to influence. Why not stick to something that can be as objective as possible, let the public ask the interview questions and let the candidates show themselves within debates. This is done for the highest office, why not do it for lower offices?

That way you know who is asking the question, you can see how they ask it, and you can see how it's answered. Would you trust someone more if they were speaking to you face to face where you could ask them questions along the way, or would you trust them more if you had to run messages through their secretary who then got back to you on their own time through an informational video created with public funds.

[quote name='UncleBob']I would like to see some kind of accountability for political advertisements.

For example, if some guy runs for office under the premise that he's going to send a manned mission to Mars, then he makes no real effort to do so, he should be held accountable in the same way that if a store runs an ad for something they don't have, they can be held accountable.[/QUOTE]

What if things change and it is no longer practical to act on their claims? You can't make someone promising a mission to mars as accountable as carrying inventory. Nevertheless, I definitely agree with your position, but I don't see a way to enforce it on a practical level.

[quote name='dmaul1114']Of course they should be allowed to advertise.

What needs fixed is campaign financing. It needs to be super strictly regulated, we need MUCH smaller limits on how much can be spent on advertising etc.

One shouldn't need the ability to raise millions to run for federal office--or even state office many places. It stacks the deck heavily in the favor of people who already have a ton of money to get such efforts started and along with the poor regulation of campaing contributions the corporacray is in full swing.[/QUOTE]

You make the financing equal and from specific people, does that mean they're not going to lie or tell you what they want you to hear? No.

[quote name='IRHari']
Yes, it really is. When voting results in nicotine addiction and lung cancer lemme know.

Yes, it should never be revised. The courts are constantly interpreting its applicability; yelling fire in a theater, death threats, slander/libel, etc. are not protected speech.

The policy you are advocating is horrifying. 'Vote for Harvey Dent' shouldn't be protected by the 1st Amendment? Jesus.[/QUOTE]

Voting based on what you see in advertisements can result in much worse than nicotine addiction and lung cancer...

Amendments should never be revised. Wow. Don't be so blind to authority and policy. How is yelling fire in a theater any different than someone lying about what they represent and are going to do for you? I get the feeling about how you would've behaved if you were living in Germany in the 1930s and 1940s.
 
WOW. So because I think campaign advertisements should be protected by the 1st Amendment, you think I'd stay silent during the Holocaust....roight.
 
[quote name='IRHari']WOW. So because I think campaign advertisements should be protected by the 1st Amendment, you think I'd stay silent during the Holocaust....roight.[/QUOTE]

No, you're saying we should never question authority, policy, or revise law. Law written hundreds of years ago is sacred and following it is the most important thing. If it's hard to interpret then just make countless different interpretations based upon something that was never written with such possible interpretations in mind, rather than using modern reason to fix laws as life deems it to be necessary for the good of the people. If you believe in never questioning authority, policy, and law this makes you similar to others who did not. Doesn't necessarily mean you would be silent during the holocaust. It could mean your blind devotion to the law could've resulted in a society that reached that point because you didn't question it along the way. You conformed.
 
[quote name='J7.']No, you're saying we should never question authority, policy, or revise law.[/QUOTE]

*sigh* show me the post where I say we should never question authority policy or revise law. I said the 1st Amendment should not be changed. Not the same thing at all. It's applicability is being interpreted by the SCOTUS in various cases, and that's checks & balances.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']do explain.[/QUOTE]
A friend of mine doesn't trust science. Not because he doesn't understand the scientific method (though he doesn't), but because scientists are often government funded. The money corrupts the results.

If we extend that, we can come up with something like: instead of representatives being beholden to corporations, they would be...beholden to government? Government being the enemy, you see.
 
[quote name='IRHari']*sigh* show me the post where I say we should never question authority policy or revise law. I said the 1st Amendment should not be changed. Not the same thing at all. It's applicability is being interpreted by the SCOTUS in various cases, and that's checks & balances.[/QUOTE]

You said we should never revise the 1st Amendment. You make it sacred. That reflects on your overall position regarding revising any policy and law. In another thread you said we should always follow policy simply because it is policy and it is in effect. I put the two together and I get the image of someone who is faithfully committed to authority, standing law, and current policy. SCOTUS is not without it's own political agenda or influence.

[quote name='mykevermin']do explain.[/QUOTE]

Just because the funding comes from the public doesn't mean the ads are going to change. You can remove 3rd party ads, but those are only part of the problem. I don't believe we can trust any ads. An advertisement in itself is a way to get you to believe in something even if it's an exaggeration, a lie, or a twisting of the truth. Put the power into the hands of the people and let the candidates show themselves for who they are and not hide behind a tv screen or ink on paper.
 
The free speech laws we have in effect right now should absolutely not be changed. You want to make laws based on emotion. No buildings near sites where tragedies occurred.

The 1st Amendment prevents the government from doing things that infringe on free speech. That's absolutely the fucking way it should be.

You seem to make a more statist 1984 approach. Oh your feelings were hurt so no more 'provocation' things near tragic sites (e.g. Park 51, though you would let this one get built and *then* make the law). Oh you have enough venues to get out your campaign messages and I'm sick of looking at these ads, so no more TV ads and shit. Oh you broke a promise you made on the campaign trail maybe there should be laws against that.

For all the libertarians on Vs. I'm surprised you're not shitting your pants when you read the policy suggestions this guy makes. Bye Amendment 1.
 
Yeah I guess you're right. I'm arguing with a guy who thinks if you feel the 1st Amendment shouldn't be changed then you might've been complicit during the Holocaust.
 
[quote name='J7.']YJust because the funding comes from the public doesn't mean the ads are going to change. You can remove 3rd party ads, but those are only part of the problem. I don't believe we can trust any ads. An advertisement in itself is a way to get you to believe in something even if it's an exaggeration, a lie, or a twisting of the truth. Put the power into the hands of the people and let the candidates show themselves for who they are and not hide behind a tv screen or ink on paper.[/QUOTE]

Then say "ads are bullshit no matter what." My entire post was about inequality in funding, not about the quality of ads. I figured you might have understood that my post wasn't too concerned about advertising when I said that "It's not about advertising versus not advertising," but perhaps my writing can be a bit opaque at times.

I'm looking for equality in campaign opportunities, to the detriment of multi-millionaires who run for office, their only qualification being the financial ability to spam their district with campaign literature.

Of course you can't trust ads. If someone running for election says "Candidate X voted for the biggest tax increase in recent history!" and what they mean is that Candidate X was in office when the Bush tax cuts were not voted on (and will subsequently expire, thanks to Republicans willingness to sacrifice 95% of the country because the rich weren't being included), do you think that's a truthful statement to make?

You can blame politicians, but don't ignore your civic responsibility to be informed. I know that many people here value opinion *followed by* information gathering, but it's supposed to be the other way. And I thought we were grown ups who looked to verify information, and didn't fall subject to campaign BS.

At the very least, public financing of campaigns will minimize the length/frequency of campaign BS. Candidates will have to spend their money more wisely.
 
[quote name='IRHari']The free speech laws we have in effect right now should absolutely not be changed. You want to make laws based on emotion. No buildings near sites where tragedies occurred.

The 1st Amendment prevents the government from doing things that infringe on free speech. That's absolutely the fucking way it should be.

You seem to make a more statist 1984 approach. Oh your feelings were hurt so no more 'provocation' things near tragic sites (e.g. Park 51, though you would let this one get built and *then* make the law). Oh you have enough venues to get out your campaign messages and I'm sick of looking at these ads, so no more TV ads and shit. Oh you broke a promise you made on the campaign trail maybe there should be laws against that.

For all the libertarians on Vs. I'm surprised you're not shitting your pants when you read the policy suggestions this guy makes. Bye Amendment 1.[/QUOTE]

Free speech allows for good and bad. When it's something like WBC spewing hate, laws are made to prevent them from doing it within 300-500 ft of funerals. That's the kind of refinement I seek. I still let them say what they want to say. Same thing here. Let politicians say what they want to say within the proper forum, but don't let them spread lies to people via advertisements. I'm not preventing them from saying what they want to say.

There's a big difference between no buildings right next to where the largest attacks on a nation occur within a certain amount of time following said attack by terrorists and no buildings where any tragedies occur. We've gone over this in the other thread. I know you know what I meant the first time I said it.

Why are we allowed to censor curse words and nudity on tv then? Are curse words and nudity more dangerous to society than a politician lying to the public to get into office and be corrupt? Did curse words and nudity cause the war in Iraq? Did they cause the recession?

How is free speech being infringed on if people are still free to say what they want to say within the right forum?

It's not my feelings, it's the feelings (lives) of the families. I'm not forcing the mosque to not be built. I only ask them to hear people's feelings and make their own decision. After that issue is solved then you can decide on laws regarding such situations. You think it makes more sense to make a law against the mosque now, after they've already done everything to get the site? It doesn't make more sense to let that play out and then deal with the law afterwards when you've learned about how that type of situation impacts things? Or instead you believe in taking away their rights now even though you oppose changing current policy...

Sure I'm sick of the ads, I find that most people are. But that's not the issue, the issue is what is in the ads, lies. I wouldn't be sick of the ads if they were not false. You're saying you would rather have these ads misinform the public into voting for someone who is not going to do what they say they are. You might as well put names in a hat and have people pick their candidates that way. No... actually you might as well have the candidates control which names are in the hat first.

Nobody said anything about promises being broken and laws being made because of that. That's your way of exaggerating to try and bolster your position. Just like these candidates do... I'm saying we should prevent these false promises from being ingrained into the heads of a large portion of the voting populace at the same time we make sure less money is wasted towards doing that.

Yes because revising the law means doing away with the law that receives revisions. If we all took the stance you take we'd still be living by Hammurabi's Code.

[quote name='IRHari']Yeah I guess you're right. I'm arguing with a guy who thinks if you feel the 1st Amendment shouldn't be changed then you might've been complicit during the Holocaust.[/QUOTE]

Sure thing because I clearly based that only on your view regarding the 1st Amendment...

[quote name='mykevermin']Then say "ads are bullshit no matter what." My entire post was about inequality in funding, not about the quality of ads. I figured you might have understood that my post wasn't too concerned about advertising when I said that "It's not about advertising versus not advertising," but perhaps my writing can be a bit opaque at times.

I'm looking for equality in campaign opportunities, to the detriment of multi-millionaires who run for office, their only qualification being the financial ability to spam their district with campaign literature.

Of course you can't trust ads. If someone running for election says "Candidate X voted for the biggest tax increase in recent history!" and what they mean is that Candidate X was in office when the Bush tax cuts were not voted on (and will subsequently expire, thanks to Republicans willingness to sacrifice 95% of the country because the rich weren't being included), do you think that's a truthful statement to make?

You can blame politicians, but don't ignore your civic responsibility to be informed. I know that many people here value opinion *followed by* information gathering, but it's supposed to be the other way. And I thought we were grown ups who looked to verify information, and didn't fall subject to campaign BS.

At the very least, public financing of campaigns will minimize the length/frequency of campaign BS. Candidates will have to spend their money more wisely.[/QUOTE]
When you said it's not about advertising vs not advertising in the context you used it I took that to mean you think advertising is okay as long as it's public financed ads.

I can choose to be informed by watching interviews and debates and ignoring ads, but a huge portion of our society does not because they're content to rely on ads, they don't want to bother being informed. So if they're only going to based their decision off their party lines and advertisements, maybe we would be better off if these ads were not allowed to be made. Maybe without access to these ads, said public would do a small amount of looking into other ways to be informed or simply not vote. Is it better to have misinformed and misdirected people pulling levers that determine our lives or to have people who have been informed correctly make such decisions.

I feel the same way about public financing, but I don't think that fixes the issue with ads, I'd like to see both things happen.
 
It is sad that elections are so strongly affected by how much money is spent advertising one side or the other that includes money from independent groups.

edit- This is something else I hate, which comes from canidates having so much money, image consultants. People hired to make a canidate look like "insert image here". They make the rich seem middle class and the clueless seem informed.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_novice_candidates_consultants

McMahon explains how the small grocery and her publicly traded World Wrestling Entertainment, which generated about $106.8 million in revenues during the second quarter of 2010, share challenges such as meeting a payroll and balancing a budget.
Click to expand...
Please...:roll:

"You spend oodles of money trying to show you're one of us, even if the rest of the world would never have that kind of money to spend proving ourselves to others," said Steinhorn, a founder of PunditWire, a website for political speechwriters. "The consultants will find the one or two little things and magnify them to make it appear the candidate is someone who has overcome difficulties and triumphed in the end."
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I fully support the national 'Do Not Call' list applying to fuckin' political ads and starting up a national 'Do Not Flyer' list for their junk mail counterpart.

The fact that if you're a registered voter you are forced to receive robocalls and all this junk mail from the idiots running for office and you can't 'opt out' is ridiculous.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top