# Real campaign-finance reform: Ban all paid political advertising in the U.S. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 27, 2012, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-campaign-finance-reform-ban-all-paid-political-advertising-in-the-u-s/623271 "2012-05-27T19:43:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 16
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2012, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-campaign-finance-reform-ban-all-paid-political-advertising-in-the-u-s/623271/301 "2012-06-08T01:33:21Z")
[GOP superPACs are planning to spend an unprecedented $1 billion on this year’s elections.](http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76849.html#ixzz1x5oSqY9X) ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2012, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-campaign-finance-reform-ban-all-paid-political-advertising-in-the-u-s/623271/302 "2012-06-08T01:34:11Z")
And they have a constitutional right to do so. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2012, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-campaign-finance-reform-ban-all-paid-political-advertising-in-the-u-s/623271/303 "2012-06-08T01:49:45Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > [GOP superPACs are planning to spend an unprecedented $1 billion on this year’s elections.](http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76849.html#ixzz1x5oSqY9X) Cool. Barak Obama spent an unprecedented amount on 2008 elections, $500M more than his opponent. Did that bother you? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2012, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-campaign-finance-reform-ban-all-paid-political-advertising-in-the-u-s/623271/304 "2012-06-08T01:57:08Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Cool. Barak Obama spent an unprecedented amount on 2008 elections, $500M more than his opponent. Did that bother you? Yes. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2012, 2:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-campaign-finance-reform-ban-all-paid-political-advertising-in-the-u-s/623271/305 "2012-06-08T02:23:11Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Yes. Great. You have been posting here since 2003. Can you show me a post of yours lamenting Obama’s huge spending superiority over McCain? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2012, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-campaign-finance-reform-ban-all-paid-political-advertising-in-the-u-s/623271/306 "2012-06-08T02:24:22Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Great. You have been posting here since 2003. Can you show me a post of yours lamenting Obama’s huge spending superiority over McCain? None. But I recall feeling appalled that **any** candidate should have to spend that much on campaigning. It’s insane, no matter who has the bigger pot. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2012, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-campaign-finance-reform-ban-all-paid-political-advertising-in-the-u-s/623271/307 "2012-06-08T02:25:39Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Yes. > [@BrainGlutton](#): > > None. But I recall feeling appalled that **any** candidate should have to spend that much on campaigning. It’s insane, no matter who has the bigger pot. I know. You were very quietly appalled. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2012, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-campaign-finance-reform-ban-all-paid-political-advertising-in-the-u-s/623271/308 "2012-06-08T02:31:01Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > I know. You were very quietly appalled. [I’m all for a fair level playing field for everybody, even Libertarians.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=15072023#post15072023) ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2012, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-campaign-finance-reform-ban-all-paid-political-advertising-in-the-u-s/623271/309 "2012-06-08T02:38:45Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > [I’m all for a fair level playing field for everybody, even Libertarians.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=15072023#post15072023) I guess you “evolved”. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2012, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-campaign-finance-reform-ban-all-paid-political-advertising-in-the-u-s/623271/310 "2012-06-08T02:46:56Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Yes. Why, it merely revealed that there was far more enthusiasm for Barack Obama then there was for John McCain. The reason Obama was able to spend more is simply because he was better at getting out his message, his message was more popular, and more people were willing to support him. What’s wrong with that? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2012, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-campaign-finance-reform-ban-all-paid-political-advertising-in-the-u-s/623271/311 "2012-06-08T02:50:41Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > Why, it merely revealed that there was far more enthusiasm for Barack Obama then there was for John McCain. > > The reason Obama was able to spend more is simply because he was better at getting out his message, his message was more popular, and more people were willing to support him. > > What’s wrong with that? That it cost that much. It shouldn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2012, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-campaign-finance-reform-ban-all-paid-political-advertising-in-the-u-s/623271/312 "2012-06-08T02:57:08Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > That it cost that much. It shouldn’t. I know. I am quietly appalled! So quiet you can’t really tell I am. Until it’s the other side that has the money advantage. Then I am loudly appalled. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2012, 3:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-campaign-finance-reform-ban-all-paid-political-advertising-in-the-u-s/623271/313 "2012-06-08T03:13:40Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > That it cost that much. It shouldn’t. What makes you think it costs “too much”. Compare the amount spent on political campaigns for the President vs. the amount spent promoting various Hollywood blockbusters and then ask which is more important, The Avengers or who becomes President. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2012, 3:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-campaign-finance-reform-ban-all-paid-political-advertising-in-the-u-s/623271/314 "2012-06-08T03:33:23Z")
> [@2sense](#): > > I don’t believe the government is allowed to do that. However they can and will arrest you for advocating the violent overthrow of the government or for revealing top secret information to demonstrate the wrongdoing of the government. I’m sorry but this is just bizarre. You seem to have been referring to \*Schenck V. The United States \*when you pointed to the upholding of the 1917 Espionage Act(though I think you referred to it as being in 1918) and have repeatedly referred to “shouting fire in a crowded theatre.” The “falsely shouting fire in a crowded theatre” comes from\* Schenck\* where the Supreme Court upheld the arrest of Charles Schenck of the Socialist Party for encouraging people to resist the draft. It had nothing to do with calling for the violent overthrow of the US or revealing top secret information. I apologize for assuming you knew more than you apparently did. For the record, I thought it was a bullshit decision and while it hasn’t been completely overthrown it was very dramatically narrowed in Brandenburg to only apply to speech designed to cause “imminent lawless action” so it hardly supports your contention that it applies to political speech which has nothing to do with criminal behavior. Again, it’s utterly asinine and stupid to refer to Brandenburg as somehow justifying limitations on the ability of corporations like the Sierra Club, the NRA, or the NAACP to criticize political candidates because doing so is not encouraging or engaging in criminal behavior. > [@](#): > > I don’t know that you do. It depends. The leaflets seem pretty innocuous to me. My understanding was that the objection to them was that they were purchased with corporate money but I doubt they were problematic. I’m sorry but that’s an extremely foolish comment. Of course “corporate money” was used. The Sierra Club is a corporation. How can they spend money without spending corporate money? > [@](#): > > As for the ads, they aren’t cheap and if they are being aired during campaigns then it’s hard to see how they are any different from campaign ads. Why? How can you regulate American citizens agitating in favor or against a political candidate without violating the First Amendment? The point of the First Amendment was to allow people to try to influence the Government without being stopped from doing so by the government. ---
**Author:** ![2sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/e47774/32.png) [@2sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2sense)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2012, 5:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-campaign-finance-reform-ban-all-paid-political-advertising-in-the-u-s/623271/315 "2012-06-08T05:26:40Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > I’m sorry but this is just bizarre. You seem to have been referring to \*Schenck V. The United States \*when you pointed to the upholding of the 1917 Espionage Act(though I think you referred to it as being in 1918) and have repeatedly referred to “shouting fire in a crowded theatre.” The significant amendments to the Espionage Act of 1917 passed the following year are commonly referred to as the Sedition Act of 1918. I believe they were upheld in Abrams v the United States. I would like to note that I have not repeatedly referred to “shouting fire in a crowded theatre.” I did so only in my first post. Subsequently it became clear that the pro-Citizens United posters were making a valid distinction between this and political speech so there was no point in bringing it up again. I make it a point to make an effort to understand opposing arguments on their own terms rather than ignore them or interpret them in the way most convenient for me. > [@](#): > > For the record, I thought it was a bullshit decision and while it hasn’t been completely overthrown it was very dramatically narrowed in Brandenburg to only apply to speech designed to cause “imminent lawless action” so it hardly supports your contention that it applies to political speech which has nothing to do with criminal behavior. I disagree that speech promoting “imminent lawless action” is automatically nonpolitical. Advocating a change in government is a political statement, no matter how one suggests that be accomplished. Likewise discussing official secrets in order to disparage the government is also political speech. > [@](#): > > Again, it’s utterly asinine and stupid to refer to Brandenburg as somehow justifying limitations on the ability of corporations like the Sierra Club, the NRA, or the NAACP to criticize political candidates because doing so is not encouraging or engaging in criminal behavior. Then I am relieved that I have not referred to Brandenburg to justify anything at all. The point of referring to the exceptions to the right to free political speech left in place by that decision is, of course, to demonstrate that there are exceptions to the right to free political speech in America. I wasn’t looking for justification. I was fighting ignorance. > [@](#): > > I’m sorry but that’s an extremely foolish comment. Of course “corporate money” was used. The Sierra Club is a corporation. How can they spend money without spending corporate money? I don’t follow. My understanding is that this was the objection to the flyers you keep referring to. I mentioned it because I was offering an opinion on that objection. People normally do indicate what they are talking about. That’s how you know what people are talking about. > [@](#): > > How can you regulate American citizens agitating in favor or against a political candidate without violating the First Amendment? As I’ve been attempting to explain, there is no absolute right in America to political speech. If that political speech conflicts with other legitimate interests and rights then these need to be balanced. I’m saying that there is a legitimate interest in free and fair elections and that regulating how money is spent on elections is a sensible solution to the current problem. Now obviously you disagree but I shouldn’t have to keep explaining my basic premise. It would help if you would make an effort to understand opposing arguments on their own terms. ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2012, 9:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-campaign-finance-reform-ban-all-paid-political-advertising-in-the-u-s/623271/316 "2012-06-08T09:06:14Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > What makes you think it costs “too much”. Compare US election costs to other developed countries (yes, adjusted for nominal GDP). The US spends huge amounts and the costs have rocketed up in recent years. In an ideal world candidates could simply post their manifestos on the internet, for negligible cost, and that would be the end of it (heck, sending a letter to every US citizen would be much cheaper than what currently takes place). Our world is obviously not ideal, but elections moving ever further from this simple model is indicative of a problem IMO. > [@](#): > > Compare the amount spent on political campaigns for the President vs. the amount spent promoting various Hollywood blockbusters and then ask which is more important, The Avengers or who becomes President. The amount spent promoting the avengers is of course far, far less than the $1 billion that just one party’s SuperPACS reckon they’ll raise. And here’s why it is a poor comparison anyway: with hollywood blockbusters, a product has been produced. That product will help the economy by first employing people to make the film, then getting people out to theatres, selling the movie abroad, and selling DVDs, toys and games etc. Marketing such a film is a good investment for the creators of the film, and the US economy. Whereas spending huge amounts of money on blockbuster ad hominem adverts, if anything simply detracts from the issues and produces nothing. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2012, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-campaign-finance-reform-ban-all-paid-political-advertising-in-the-u-s/623271/317 "2012-06-08T22:55:33Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > Compare US election costs to other developed countries (yes, adjusted for nominal GDP). The US spends huge amounts and the costs have rocketed up in recent years. > > In an ideal world candidates could simply post their manifestos on the internet, for negligible cost, and that would be the end of it (heck, sending a letter to every US citizen would be much cheaper than what currently takes place). > Our world is obviously not ideal, but elections moving ever further from this simple model is indicative of a problem IMO. > > The amount spent promoting the avengers is of course far, far less than the $1 billion that just one party’s SuperPACS reckon they’ll raise. > > And here’s why it is a poor comparison anyway: with hollywood blockbusters, a product has been produced. That product will help the economy by first employing people to make the film, then getting people out to theatres, selling the movie abroad, and selling DVDs, toys and games etc. Marketing such a film is a good investment for the creators of the film, and the US economy. > > Whereas spending huge amounts of money on blockbuster ad hominem adverts, if anything simply detracts from the issues and produces nothing. Actually, the main reason elections cost so much more in the US is that they’re so much longer. In the UK, I think it’s six weeks whereas here its effectively more than a year. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2012, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-campaign-finance-reform-ban-all-paid-political-advertising-in-the-u-s/623271/318 "2012-06-15T16:41:19Z")
[Republican Spending on Dishonest Ads Increases.](http://www.thenation.com/blog/168427/republican-spending-dishonest-ads-increases) > [@](#): > > While there is no question that swing state voters will be inundated with ads that inaccurately portray President Obama’s record, the more significant Republican spending advantage may ultimately be in down ballot races. While Obama will be outspent by his opponents, he will certainly have enough money to get his message out as well. But in House and Senate races, where spending levels tend to be much lower, an infusion of outside money can give a candidate a real leg up. > > And Republicans are already working on giving their candidates that advantage. The Post reports, “The National Republican Congressional Committee has reserved $18 million worth of ad space in 17 media markets spanning 25 competitive districts — one of the first windows into which districts the committee plans to pursue and defend this fall as they seek to retain control of the House.” > > Now, thanks to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United v FEC, there will be a whole other national source of ad spending for Republican congressional candidates besides the NRCC and its counterpart for Senate races. As Politico reports, “The GOP independent spending goliath American Crossroads and its affiliate group Crossroads GPS are launching a new barrage of attack ads in six competitive Senate races, assailing a range of Democratic candidates.” > > The ad attacking Tim Kaine in Virginia is a good example of the kind of dishonesty that pervades ads from Karl Rove’s Crossroads empire. It is based on the bizarre premise that Kaine, a former Governor of Virginia, “went to Washington,” when he served as chair of the Democratic National Committee. (Strangely it shows footage of someone flying to illustrate the point, even though Richmond and Washington are just a few hours apart by car or train.) Kaine was not in a national elected office, and yet the ad blames Kaine for what it considers to be unpopular actions taken by President Obama and Congress. The specific examples? “Medicare spending cuts” and “a huge energy tax.” > > The complaint that Democrats cut spending on Medicare is a particularly disingenuous piece of Republican partisan hackery. What they are referring to is the removal of wasteful subsidies to private insurers through the Medicare advantage program. No cuts in actual benefits to Medicare recipients have been enacted. Moreover, it is Republicans, not Democrats, who advocate drastically cutting spending on Medicare, even privatizing it. > > It is also not true that Democrats proposed an energy tax. That presumably refers to the cap and trade legislation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. That was not a tax, but a system for buying credits, and it would have fallen equally on all sources of greenhouse gases, not merely energy. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2012, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-campaign-finance-reform-ban-all-paid-political-advertising-in-the-u-s/623271/319 "2012-06-15T16:49:16Z")
One thing the pro-buying elections side is forgetting, is that Obama had a huge money advantage in 2008 because of many donors giving in small chunks. Romney will have an advantage because of 20 or 30 donors who are billionaires, who want their specific monied interests promoted. A bunch of people and corporations giving to generate an overwhelming amount of money is shitty, but understandable and at least in line with American ideals. A handful of ultrarich people giving to generate an overwhelming amount of money is giving those two dozen the political power of hundreds of thousands of citizens. And that’s living in a country where the billionaires write the laws. Only a complete partisan or a lackey lickspittle should want to grovel at the feet of the nobles for alms. This isn’t what America is supposed to be about. If you described a Super-PAC to Benjamin Franklin and said it was a good thing, he’d kick you in the groin and fuck your mom. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2012, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-campaign-finance-reform-ban-all-paid-political-advertising-in-the-u-s/623271/320 "2012-06-15T19:02:26Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > A handful of ultrarich people giving to generate an overwhelming amount of money is giving those two dozen the political power of hundreds of thousands of citizens. And that’s living in a country where the billionaires write the laws. Of which, [see here](http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/thu-june-14-2012-catherine-zeta-jones) [an instance](http://www.thenation.com/blog/168397/senators-suck-jamie-dimon-get-paid-it) [in action.](http://www.thenation.com/article/168410/jamie-dimon-redefines-hedging-studious-senate-takes-notes) (Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan Chase, testifies before/is fellated by the Senate Banking Committee; see the second link for a breakdown of JPMC’s campaign contributions to committee members.) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-campaign-finance-reform-ban-all-paid-political-advertising-in-the-u-s/623271.md?page=15) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-campaign-finance-reform-ban-all-paid-political-advertising-in-the-u-s/623271.md?page=17)