Liberal hypocrisy! Over here! Everybody come see!
Yes, so the voters shouldn’t do that, should they?
So we should ration speech? Everyone gets a certain amount of speech and then they have to shut up? One minute each, will that work for you?
There is no basis in law or our basic values for the idea that we can censor speech because we think someone has “too much.” In fact, that idea that we have to censor speech to protect freedom of speech is downright Orwellian.
Empty rhetoric.
I already told you - you have no right to declare anything about advertising. It’s none of your damn business how or why voters think the way they do. How dare you decide you know better than they do? Your respect for democracy is zero. And to think you say you want to protect democracy.
If it’s none of our damn business how or why voters think the way they do, shouldn’t political advertising be illegal? Because after all, that is a group of people making it their business how other voters think.
Look, we get it. You only believe hypocrisy is bad if republicans do it.
Humans do it. Its as common as navels. As a debating point, to compare one group against another, its like accusing someone of having an asshole.
Seriously?
You’re playing the same silly game - assuming that voters are just told what to think.
Do you believe you need the government to tell you what you can see or hear or read? Yes or no? Should the government make it its business how you think?
Stop this nonsense.
Well, just to throw in a monkey wrench, because I’m like that: I’m a liberal/moderate Democrat, as well as a strong supporter of the Citizens United decision, especially Scalia’s excellent concurring opinion.
Oh, and as I’ve mentioned before, so were those libs over at the ACLU, by the way.
Well, whoopity fuck-a-doo.
Perhaps you could lead by example.
Isn’t that what the tobacco execs claimed about cigarette advertising? That ads that were clearly targeted at young people/teens were NOT about getting them to start smoking, but were merely only to reinforce what brand to choose. Riiiiight.
Maybe our new poster lance is a former tobacco advertising guy?
Ooooh, snap! You’re in rare form today, John!
Well, of course they’re told what to think. I thought that part was obvious 
.
Let’s start over at the beginning: Do you acknowledge the existence of political advertising?
Well, it helps the television networks, doesn’t it? I assume print media is getting some of that money, and they sure could use it. It’s like corn subsidies, for advertisers.
I’ve cited studies, either in this thread or in the other one, that show that
- Once you get to a certain point, further spending gives vastly diminishing returns (and in some cases negative returns)
- Big spending mostly helps challengers. Big spending by incumbents does not improve their results much.
Really? Do we really have to do this?
Yes, political ads exist.
Please ask your questions all at once so we can dispense with this faster.
You don’t seem to get this - political speech is not commercial speech. It doesn’t matter who is targeted, or why, or whether it works. Political speech may not be regulated. It is your business why people smoke. It is NOT your business why people vote.
Yes, political ads work. Just like any speech about politics may convince someone. You don’t get to censor it. Period. Deal with it.
Meh. Canadians regulate how much money can be spent on political advertising, to no obvious detriment to our freedom. Money can talk, but not about politics.
In any case, it all looks kinda academic to me. Some SuperPac spends a month and $20 million producing and broadcasting a pro-Kerry ad that millions of people Tivo-skip, then some kid spends 45 minutes and no money to re-edit the ad to mock Kerry and gets a million YouTube hits. Democracy in action.
Yes it is, by definition.
We have a free speech clause of our Constitution. You don’t. You are less free.
I’ve heard that television networks and stations are actually against all of the political advertising, because it has to be offered at the lowest rates they charge. TV stations would rather sell more ads to higher-paying companies, but if all of the commercial time is bought up by political ads, the net result is TV stations will be earning less money even though they’re selling all of their ad time.
The smart poeople just buy their own network and spew their political opinions all they want, and nobody ever questions their right to do it. Sure beats renting the airwaves 30 seconds at a time. You know, like Murdoch and Fox News.