Should Politicians be Allowed to Advertise?

[quote name='IAmTheCheapestGamer']I fully support the national 'Do Not Call' list applying to fuckin' political ads[/QUOTE]

Agreed.

I'd prefer if the DNC list allowed users to select which categories they'd like to opt-in/opt-out of.

They could set up categories like, commercial, political, charitable, etc., etc. If you don't mind calls from X, but don't want calls from Y (or, don't want calls from any of them), you could select the individual categories you don't want to hear from.
 
One candidate for federal office is taking the battle against these big corporate interests into his own hands. Surya Yalamanchili — a former Apprentice contestant who, as ThinkProgress previously noted, faced attacks during his primary that someone with his name can’t win — is the Democratic nominee for Congress to take on Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-OH) in Ohio’s 2nd district. Yalamanchili is running his campaign without taking a dime from Political Action Committees (PACs), which are “organized for the purpose of raising and spending money to elect and defeat candidates,” and are often vehicles for corporate special interests. He is the only major candidate — defined here as anyone raising more than $100,000 — for federal office who is running without help from PACs, other than Connecticut’s GOP US Senate Linda McMahon, who is self-financing her election with tens of millions of dollars of her personal wealth. That means Yalamanchili is the only major candidate running for federal office who is both refusing to take PAC money and not financing his campaign out of his personal wealth.
Click to expand...

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/10/18/yalamanchili-federal-pac-donations/
 
He's not taking PAC money and not using personal wealth, McMahon is self-financing. Does this mean neither of them tells lies, exaggerates things, denounces their competitors, etc? It's a first step in the right direction, but it doesn't mean what he advertises will be unquestionable.
 
What the hell? No one is arguing he won't tell lies or exaggerate or any of that bullshit. No one argues that what he advertises will be unquestionable.
 
I think he's assuming that without outside money politicians would have no reason to lie. Except you know, to get elected. not that they'd be worried about a little thing like that.
 
[quote name='IRHari']What the hell? No one is arguing he won't tell lies or exaggerate or any of that bullshit. No one argues that what he advertises will be unquestionable.[/QUOTE]

Then what's the point of posting it in this "vs" thread? You already disagreed with my view of even questioning whether politicians should be allowed to advertise and you advocate for just getting rid of 3rd party funding as if that would fix the problem instead. You just posted something you deem as positive towards your view. I disagree that we should only focus on getting rid of 3rd party funding. I don't think it will make political ads legitimate. It will help but only to a certain degree.

The simple fact is that you oppose my solution to the problem and suggest a different one for helping curb the same problem. You want less outside influence and greater accountability within your interpretation of the law. I want to remove outside influence entirely, as best one can, and accountability to come from seeing the candidates put on the spot. I think a little censorship of lies a person will tell you to get into a position where they have control of your life is worth it. You want to be far more conservative.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top