Allow political TV ads only during political TV shows, from any source, whether independent or party. People who watch The Bachelor, as some here have pointed out, did not ask to see campaign ads. But those who watch O’Reilly or Hannity, or Maddow, or even The Daily Show, will want to see those ads. That way people can consume political content when they want it, and be free of it when they don’t.
Advertising on Youtube, Hulu, etc. would still be unregulated, in the spirit of a free internet.
Rachel has a swan’s neck, a girlish giggle and a mind like a steel trap. Billious O is your dyspeptic uncle who ruins Thanksgiving every year. Plus, she is having one heck of a good time fighting the good fight, while Bill Oh Really? acts like he is performing a painful duty. No contest.
If that were all there was to it, it would be nothing but blue skies and sunshine for us lefties. And the only thing wrong with that is that it just ain’t so.
Please. The media and the power of incumbency are at least 10 times as powerful in our politics as billionaire contributions. The media can destroy any candidate it wants just by wishing it so, or virtually saint any candidate by only doing positive coverage. Incumbents get more free coverage than challengers and have the power to influence votes through the appropriations process, which in one fell swoop can drown out any ten billionaires.
Those who watch Hannity are immune from political ads. They’ll vote Republican even if Charles Manson is the candidate. People who watch politically oriented shows are generally those who already know how they’ll vote. Airing a Democratic ad during Hannity would be like trying to sell Red Sox souvenirs at Yankee Stadium.
Can you offer us any reason to believe that outside of the awesomeness of your authority? Are the Koch Bros. stupid, just pissing their money away, along with many others? I should be easy to convince on that one, since I would love it to be true, but it isn’t, best I can tell.
Now, it may not be as true as it was, I’m impressed by what I see happening in the realm of “crowd sourcing” politics, soliciting a lot of small donations from many people, that seems to working out. Daily Kos plays that a lot, soliciting support for down-ticket candidates in close races, five bucks a pop or so. To my way of thinking, a million bucks from 200,000 people is more pox vopuli that a million from one guy.
Define “political advertisement”. That was the whole point of the question. When does an “ad” become a “documentary”? If FoxNews makes a documentary on Beghazi when HRC is a candidate, is that an “ad”?
I think your proposal would ensure that very rich people would be elected, if your premise is correct. If it’s possible to buy elections through negative ads (I don’t think it generally is, but it’s YOUR assumption, so let’s see how your proposal stands up to it) then Richie Rich is going to smack down Tommy Poorhouse every time by financing his own campaign. No?
But more to the point, you are fighting a war from the last century. Social Media is the name of the game these days, and it’s mostly free.
Since Citizens United, it’s been a lot easier to beat incumbents than in the past. That’s the real reason this is a crisis for the political class. And lots of gullible people see things their way.
Well, now, easy up a little there, hoss. Maybe I offended your dignity, but you gotta remember it comes from a guy who likes you well enough to think you don’t really need it.
Am I saying that money is the sole determinant? That Throckmorton, who thinks that Calvin Coolidge was a bleating-heart liberal, and wants to run for Senator from the People’s Republic of Vermont…he would win if he had enough money? Just flood the airwaves, and that would do it? No.
But. (You knew that “but” was coming, didn’t you?) But.
There’s a lot of really close races these days. Opportunities for comparatively minor points of leverage to have an outsize impact. Like voter id repression, its not about wholesale disenfranchisement, its about trimming away a few percentage points. But can you gain one, two, five percentage points with outspending your opponent?
Lets say, for shits and giggles, it takes about a million dollars to move a close race a couple of points. the Koch’s are going to spend 900 million. Well, hell that’s…wait a second…carry the two…shit, there isn’t one…that’s 90 close races right there!
And so what you get then would be an electorate that is roughly divided between two predominant political parties, but the money on one side could easily result in a legislative body that reflects an electorate just hog-wild in love with Republicans! Which, I am confident you will agree, ain’t so.
Now, let it be noted again, there are glimmers. Massive internet efforts to route small donations from the un-wealthy where they will do the most good. Thing is, we’ve got to go get it and they already have it. They’ve got their spreadsheets already printed up months before we can even guess how much we’re gonna need.
Sound like a fair way to play baseball to you? We want to change that, Hugh Betcha. We could use your help if you’ve nothing better to do. But if you won’t lead, won’t follow, could you get out of the way?
Sure, as long as you don’t make the little guy get permission first before speaking. Oh wait, you did that already. A lot of small-time Tea Party groups had to disband because the IRS held up their applications for tax exempt status. These weren’t exactly Koch-types either.
