Is it? What if I say it isn’t? I mean, if you just define “free speech” as including political ads, it clearly is, but to me, paid political advertising is not something which is such a part and parcel with the very concept of free expression that any infringement of it is by its very nature a violation of core inalienable freedoms.
It’s certainly true that it would be difficult to properly define where the boundaries were, and people would be constantly pushing at those boundaries. But then, that’s true of all sorts of things, and doesn’t make them automatically invalid and not worth doing.
Then you have a crummy definition of free speech. The entire point of free speech is to make sure that information about the issues can be talked about. Without it, the ruling class could outlaw talk of other ideas. The other benefits are side effects of this.
Without political ads, you would have a nearly completely uninformed electorate. Those ads are pretty much the only way people ever learn negatives about their chosen party. They are how independents usually end up deciding who to vote for.
The one part of Freedom of Speech that is fundamental to democracy is the ability to spread information about the candidates. Eliminate that, and freedom of speech is just the freedom to be an asshole.
Seems to me I could make an argument making precisely the opposite point, which is that if we allow money-fueled political ads, then all we’re doing is allowing the ruling/dominant class to constantly and persistently outshout all others, leading to a vicious cycle.
I guess there are at least three distinct questions here:
(1) Is paid political advertisement, in and of itself, part of (vaguely defined) “free expression”. I say no, you say yes, not sure there’s any real debate to be had if we disagree
(2) Does paid political advertisement make a society’s democratic government function better or worse (you seem to say yes, I say no no no a thousand times no)
(3) What should we do in the current US to improve things wrt this issue? (beats the heck out of me, at least in a practical sense)
Nonsense. For one thing, there is nothing much to learn from minute-long TV spots. To whit. Quite the contrary - they reduce everything to slogans, sound bytes and bullshit talking points. I daresay that addled brand of ADHD-inducing public discourse is not really worth protecting at all costs (notably, at the cost of equal representation).
For another, political ads are not a thing here in France yet our fence-sitting voters somehow seem well informed enough regardless ; by way of independent newspapers, political rallies if they’re willing to get out of the house, official televised debates come elections time, or the Internet. Hell, if anything I’d wager they’re *better *informed for lack of a Fox News-like blindly partisan spin machine (official political air time & equal representation are strictly enforced, so there’s no such thing as the “All UMP, all the time” channel).
There is nothing necessary, or redeemable IMO, about political ads.
Well, it’s always been true. Printing presses aren’t cheap. Unless you re-define freedom of the press, also, then the same problem is going to pertain: rich people will simply print their own newspapers, or hire speakers, or otherwise use their re$ource$ to get their opinions heard. The framers knew what the risks were…
I certainly agree that it makes me uncomfortable that really rich people can buy elections – or at least they can take a really good stab at it. I’m a little comforted by the fact that the last couple of millionaires who tried to buy a Senate seat in California failed. I hope the rest of their ilk learn a lesson from it.
This is one of those cases where any proposed cure is very likely to be “worse than the disease.”
(By the way, I know a newspaper editor who engaged in the “news” dodge, to get around campaign spending limits. A candidate’s supporters gave this editor a lot of money, to fund “investigative reporting” on the candidate, and, to no one’s surprise, the “news articles” were unfailingly complimentary and laudatory.)
Well, that’s somewhat of a separate issue. There’s one question as to whether the situation we’re in is a bad thing, a different question whether there are practical things we can do about it. Certainly people talk about campaign finance reform (which is at least a related issue) a lot…
There might never be a perfect solution, that doesn’t mean it’s not worth even thinking about it and trying to make things better than they are currently.
Oh, please. More horrifying than letting deep pockets propagandize their own people into office, propagandize anyone who calls them on it out of public office (look at poor dumb John Edwards, honey-trapped and then charged with a felony when he tried to protect his image), and rewrite popular opinion to suit themselves?
There are two good reasons to [del]muzzle[/del] regulate campaign financiers and the press with equal time and fairness rules: One is the simple fact that there are quid pro quo arrangements going on, and that’s corruption, pure and simple. The other is that any government, democratic or not, needs the best information it can get to manage itself and its country wisely; special interests controlling the message make the government work less well, and can lead us into destruction.
The term referred to the Stasi having agents seduce and compromise agents from “the other side”.
Are you seriously trying to argue that the woman Edwards had an affair with and fathered a child with was a paid political operative from one if his opponent?
Who says it was another politician? Do you have to be running for office to have an interest in politics?
It’s conspiracy theory at this point, but this blog–
–makes a pretty good prima facie case for both John Edwards and Gary Hart having been seduced with the intent to expose them. This doesn’t excuse them being dumb enough to fall into the traps.