• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Should political advertisements be banned?

B

bignateyk

Lifer
Note: I don't vote, and my political views are pretty middle of the road, so this opinion is not biased.

It seems to me that political advertisements are full of lies and misdirection, from all parties involved. It also seems to me that whichever candidate spends the most money on these disgraceful ads will ultimately win the election. The end result is that corporations, organizations, rich people, and even other countries could be in effect determining the outcome of most of our elections.

Political advertisements should be banned in all forms. Mostly because I hate listening to all our worthless politicians spouting off more lies and FUD.


EDIT:

Alternatively:
What if instead we were to keep ads, and make new rules for campaign contributions.

I.e.

No contributions from corporations.
No contributions from foreign sources.
No single person can contribute over $X.

Any candidate convicted of accepting fraudulent donations is removed from public service for the rest of their life.
 
Last edited:
I hate all the dumb lies /ads on TV each election cycle as much as the next person, but if you ban all ads (which, incidentally would not fly with the supreme court as it would be against the freedom of speech rights), how does a legitimate group that wants to shed light on something a candidate did go about doing it?
 
I wouldn't mind banning them if only they could be defined - much like I might consent to an all powerful government if everything were different from the way that it is...
 
PokerGuy said:
I hate all the dumb lies /ads on TV each election cycle as much as the next person, but if you ban all ads (which, incidentally would not fly with the supreme court as it would be against the freedom of speech rights), how does a legitimate group that wants to shed light on something a candidate did go about doing it?
Click to expand...

Televised debates, rallies, door to door, etc..
 
PokerGuy said:
That's commercial speech. Political ads are not commercial speech.
Click to expand...

Actually, that's debatable, when corporations are donating money for them for their business interests.

I was just reading about one of the main cases about regulating corporate donations where the main issue was whether to consider the speech commercial or political.
 
OK, so what if instead we were to keep ads, and make new rules for campaign contributions.

I.e.

No contributions from corporations.
No contributions from foreign sources.
No single person can contribute over $X.

Any candidate convicted of accepting fraudulent donations is removed from public service for the rest of their life.
 
bignateyk said:
OK, so what if instead we were to keep ads, and make new rules for campaign contributions.

I.e.

No contributions from corporations.
No contributions from foreign sources.
No single person can contribute over $X.

Any candidate convicted of accepting fraudulent donations is removed from public service for the rest of their life.
Click to expand...

You're sort of on the right track, but this is what the Supreme Court killed recently.

Since then, this election tens of millions have been spent from anonymous sources.
 
If you want to save your country from the power money can buy you need to start at the grass roots, I think. Make your life ambition to amend the Constitution. Change the law that says that money is speech and corporations are people.

The politicians don't seem to be able to do it. They seem to want to be reelected with corporate or special interest money.

Only you can change that, all of us together. This is what a real tea party would go for in my opinion. Folk can't serve two masters and the master is monied interests. The people are fucked.
 
bignateyk said:
What makes you so sure? Corporations are the ones paying for them.
Click to expand...

Craig234 said:
Actually, that's debatable, when corporations are donating money for them for their business interests.

I was just reading about one of the main cases about regulating corporate donations where the main issue was whether to consider the speech commercial or political.
Click to expand...

From wiki:
Commercial Speech is speech done on behalf of a company or individual for the intent of making a profit. It is economic in nature and usually has the intent of convincing the audience to partake in a particular action, often purchasing a specific product.
Click to expand...

So banning tobacco ads (clearly commercial speech) is not the same as banning political ads that are clearly not commercial speech.
 
Before we debate a solution to the problem, is the problem really a problem?

Has it been directly shown that the one with the most money in a race inherently wins?

Apart from the important Freedom of Speech angle, the reason I ask is because I don't see any realistic and practical way to prevent an individual or organization from using their money to speak out for or against a candidate that really wants to do so.

-> No contributions from corporations.

Create a different organization and funnel money.

-> No contributions from foreign sources.

Create a local organization and funnel money.

-> No single person can contribute over $X.

Spread your money over other individuals.

-> All candidates receive fixed amount from government

Get separate groups to fund their own ads, like the Swift Boat Vets.

See?
 
Last edited:
Does money coming from foreign sources, sometimes unknown, have just as much free speech as money coming from domestic sources, sometimes unknown?
 
From wiki: Quote:
Commercial Speech is speech done on behalf of a company or individual for the intent of making a profit. It is economic in nature and usually has the intent of convincing the audience to partake in a particular action, often purchasing a specific product.
So banning tobacco ads (clearly commercial speech) is not the same as banning political ads that are clearly not commercial speech.
Click to expand...
From your quote:

1) Intent of making a profit

Corporations donate to political campaigns because they know the person they are donating to has their interests in mind, and will result in higher profits for the company.

2) Convincing the audience to partake in a particular action

Like voting for the candidate that will then have the interests of the company in mind?

Sounds like there isn't much difference between commercial and political speech to me, especially when the corporation is the one who MAKES the commercial.
 
Last edited:
imported_alphadog said:
Before we debate a solution to the problem, is the problem really a problem?

Has it been directly shown that the one with the most money in a race inherently wins?

Apart from the important Freedom of Speech angle, the reason I ask is because I don't see any realistic and practical way to prevent an individual or organization from using their money to speak out for or against a candidate that really wants to do so.

-> No contributions from corporations.

Create a different organization and funnel money.

-> No contributions from foreign sources.

Create a local organization and funnel money.

-> No single person can contribute over $X.

Spread your money over other individuals.

-> All candidates receive fixed amount from government

Get separate groups to fund their own ads, like the Swift Boat Vets.

See?
Click to expand...

So because it is possible to create fraud, we should just give up trying to keep these politicians honest?

How about: All campaign donations must be registered with a government organization and tied to the social security number of whomever makes the donation.
 
Nobody has answered a very important question: beyond the need to have some minimum amount of money to get some sort of message out, does the amount of money correlate with guarantees winning?

bignateyk said:
So because it is possible to create fraud, we should just give up trying to keep these politicians honest?
Click to expand...

Yes, if the solution is more egregious than the problem or useless.

bignateyk said:
tied to the social security number of whomever makes the donation
Click to expand...

IOW, don't just screw with freedom of speech, but also screw with my privacy too?!?

Back to the drawing board.
 
What do you do with a corporation that is political? The NRA is a non-profit corporation. A lot of people give them money with the intention that it be used for political speech. If those people each tried to speak individually, they would not be able to purchase ads, and therefore would not be heard nearly as well as they can be when they work through a corporation.
 
daishi5 said:
What do you do with a corporation that is political? The NRA is a non-profit corporation. A lot of people give them money with the intention that it be used for political speech. If those people each tried to speak individually, they would not be able to purchase ads, and therefore would not be heard nearly as well as they can be when they work through a corporation.
Click to expand...

No corporate money. No exceptions. What do they need ads for? To brainwash people and stir up fear mongering? Tactics like that are everything that is wrong with politics today. (I am pro gun BTW).

99.99% of the population that votes doesn't have a fucking clue. They just check the box next to the name they recognize or the name they saw bashing someone else on the TV.

There should be a test required every year before you can vote covering basic subjects like civic education, science, current events, geography, etc...

People are too stupid for democracy.
 
bignateyk said:
No contributions from corporations.
No contributions from foreign sources.
No single person can contribute over $X.
Click to expand...

Already regulated.

The Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) prohibits any foreign national from contributing, donating or spending funds in connection with any federal, state, or local election in the United States, either directly or indirectly. It is also unlawful to help foreign nationals violate that ban or to solicit, receive or accept contributions or donations from them. Persons who knowingly and willfully engage in these activities may be subject to fines and/or imprisonment.
Who is a Foreign National? The following groups and individuals are considered "foreign nationals" and are, therefore, subject to the prohibition:

  • Foreign governments;
  • Foreign political parties;
  • Foreign corporations;
  • Foreign associations;
  • Foreign partnerships;
  • Individuals with foreign citizenship; and
  • Immigrants who do not have a "green card."
Click to expand...
The FECA places limits on contributions by individuals and groups to candidates, party committees and PACs. The chart below shows how the limits apply to the various participants in federal elections. The chart below shows the specific contribution limits for 2009-2010.
Click to expand...
Contribution limits in the U.S.
 
Last edited:
bignateyk said:
99.99% of the population that votes doesn't have a fucking clue. They just check the box next to the name they recognize or the name they saw bashing someone else on the TV
Click to expand...

Again, another gross over-generalization. My guess is because people vote differently than you, you think they must not "have a fucking clue". That is explained because you somehow think you are the Fount Of Eternal Wisdom or something, something...
 
bignateyk said:
No corporate money. No exceptions. What do they need ads for? To brainwash people and stir up fear mongering? Tactics like that are everything that is wrong with politics today. (I am pro gun BTW).

99.99% of the population that votes doesn't have a fucking clue. They just check the box next to the name they recognize or the name they saw bashing someone else on the TV.

There should be a test required every year before you can vote covering basic subjects like civic education, science, current events, geography, etc...
Click to expand...

They tried that before, as a way of preventing black people from voting.


People are too stupid for democracy.
Click to expand...

Sure a benevolent dictator is best, but he (or she) is as real as the tooth fairy or santa claus.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top