# 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:** 4
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2012, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-campaign-finance-reform-ban-all-paid-political-advertising-in-the-u-s/623271/61 "2012-05-28T20:47:34Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > I am under the impression that Democrats or Liberals see freedom of speech as a disadvantage to them, politically, and are wishing to eliminate it. To “level the playing field” of course. You are under a grave misimpression. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2012, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-campaign-finance-reform-ban-all-paid-political-advertising-in-the-u-s/623271/62 "2012-05-28T20:51:26Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > You are under a grave misimpression. Your disdain for the First Amendment doesn’t correct that impression. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2012, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-campaign-finance-reform-ban-all-paid-political-advertising-in-the-u-s/623271/63 "2012-05-28T20:54:05Z")
> [@fruitbat](#): > > You all realize this is yet another, largely left led . . . [Michael Lind](http://newamerica.net/user/91) (quoted in the OP) is no leftist. Neither was Barry Goldwater. You don’t need to be any kind of a leftist to find plutocracy very deeply objectionable. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2012, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-campaign-finance-reform-ban-all-paid-political-advertising-in-the-u-s/623271/64 "2012-05-28T20:55:24Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Your disdain for the First Amendment doesn’t correct that impression. _sigh_ Read this again: > [@](#): > > An outright ban on paid political advertising and the imposition of free time requirements on the media are radical measures, but nothing less is necessary if we are to prevent our government from continuing to be sold to the highest bidders. The argument against strict public regulation of money in politics is based on a false analogy between free spending and free speech protected under the First Amendment. The analogy is false, because limits on campaign finance do not address the content of speech – only its volume, as it were. **It is not an infringement on free speech to say that, in a large public auditorium, Douglas will not be allowed to use a microphone unless Lincoln can as well.** \* > > \*A much more compelling analogy would be between the electoral process and the judicial system, with the electorate playing the role of the jury. In our system of trial by jury, there are elaborate rules governing the presentation of evidence to the jury by plaintiff and defendant (the “candidates”). If our judicial system were organized the way our judicial system is, then rich candidates would be allowed to buy time before the jury. Texas Senator Phil Gramm, in one Senate election, outspent his opponent by 300 to 1; the equivalent, in the judicial system, would be allowing a rich defendant to buy, say, six months to present his side of the case, while the poor plaintiff might be able to purchase only twenty minutes for his side. ---
**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:** [May 28, 2012, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-campaign-finance-reform-ban-all-paid-political-advertising-in-the-u-s/623271/65 "2012-05-28T20:56:06Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > [Michael Lind](http://newamerica.net/user/91) (quoted in the OP) is no leftist. Neither was Barry Goldwater. You don’t need to be any kind of a leftist to find plutocracy very deeply objectionable. It is impressive the kind of servile, lackey mentality that permeates the right. “Yes, sir, Mr. Rich, beautiful day, Mr. Rich. Keep on with those grand ideas, sir!” ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2012, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-campaign-finance-reform-ban-all-paid-political-advertising-in-the-u-s/623271/66 "2012-05-28T20:56:40Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > (emphasis added) > A bit of a bait and switch there. No-one’s talking about banning all paid political advertising. Yes, that’s what this thread is about. No one is taling about banning **all political** advertising, only about banning a situation where you can **buy** it. In the FF’s day, the question simply did not arise, it was all newspapers and every newspaper had its understood political slant. But the age of electronic media changes everything. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2012, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-campaign-finance-reform-ban-all-paid-political-advertising-in-the-u-s/623271/67 "2012-05-28T21:00:52Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Yes, that’s what this thread is about. No one is taling about banning **all political** advertising, only about banning a situation where you can **buy** it. In the FF’s day, the question simply did not arise, it was all newspapers and every newspaper had its understood political slant. But the age of electronic media changes everything. So, when the NYT posts an endorsement of Obama on its editorial page, are they buying anything? ---
**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:** [May 28, 2012, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-campaign-finance-reform-ban-all-paid-political-advertising-in-the-u-s/623271/68 "2012-05-28T21:02:57Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > So, when the NYT posts an endorsement of Obama on its editorial page, are they buying anything? So, do you think that campaign commercials and advertising are the same thing as the NYT editorial page? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2012, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-campaign-finance-reform-ban-all-paid-political-advertising-in-the-u-s/623271/69 "2012-05-28T21:05:49Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > So, when the NYT posts an endorsement of Obama on its editorial page, are they buying anything? See the OP. ---
**Author:** ![Absolute](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b2d939/32.png) [@Absolute](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Absolute)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2012, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-campaign-finance-reform-ban-all-paid-political-advertising-in-the-u-s/623271/70 "2012-05-28T21:06:20Z")
Regardless of how you want to accomplish it, the idea that a fair election requires somehow equalizing all political speech implies that the average voter is incapable of evaluating the content of political speech, only the volume. If you think this is true to such a degree that it merits completely changing the meaning of freedom in this country in order to negate it, then you are essentially claiming that democracy has failed, and simply arguing that the side you favor should be treated fairly in the resulting charade. Personally, I am not ready to give up on freedom and democracy yet. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2012, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-campaign-finance-reform-ban-all-paid-political-advertising-in-the-u-s/623271/71 "2012-05-28T21:08:20Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > See the OP. TLDR ---
**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:** [May 28, 2012, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-campaign-finance-reform-ban-all-paid-political-advertising-in-the-u-s/623271/72 "2012-05-28T21:11:22Z")
> [@Absolute](#): > > Regardless of how you want to accomplish it, the idea that a fair election requires somehow equalizing all political speech implies that the average voter is incapable of evaluating the content of political speech, only the volume. > > If you think this is true to such a degree that it merits completely changing the meaning of freedom in this country in order to negate it, then you are essentially claiming that democracy has failed, and simply arguing that the side you favor should be treated fairly in the resulting charade. > > Personally, I am not ready to give up on freedom and democracy yet. Your argument is nonsense. People are manipulated by advertising. Particularly misleading or lying advertising. When you can bombard a market with nothing but negative ads about your opponent, you can change election numbers. To deny this is absurd. And no, I’m not _essentially saying democracy has failed_. You are simply trying to frame this as _no-big-deal_, not making an cogent argument. ---
**Author:** ![Absolute](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b2d939/32.png) [@Absolute](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Absolute)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2012, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-campaign-finance-reform-ban-all-paid-political-advertising-in-the-u-s/623271/73 "2012-05-28T21:12:58Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > You are under a grave misimpression. Some people fail to understand (honestly or otherwise) that freedom and mandated equality are fundamentally incompatible. ---
**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:** [May 28, 2012, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-campaign-finance-reform-ban-all-paid-political-advertising-in-the-u-s/623271/74 "2012-05-28T21:13:06Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > TLDR Since you appear to tired to actually argue things in good faith, I’ve taken the time to help you. > [@The OP](#): > > This relates only to advertising, not editorializing. Media outlets would remain free to editorialize, Fox News and MSNBC would be free to continue politicizing the news each in its own way, etc. The Equal-Time Rule and the Fairness Doctrine are topics for a different debate; in any case, their scope is limited to airwave-broadcast media, not print, cable, or Internet media. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2012, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-campaign-finance-reform-ban-all-paid-political-advertising-in-the-u-s/623271/75 "2012-05-28T21:15:10Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Since you appear to tired to actually argue things in good faith, I’ve taken the time to help you. OK. How is that different from advertising or self-financing? How does it not give a huge advantage in terms of getting the message out to anyone who owns a newspaper? Of course, if that remains the rule, then we’re gonna see a lot of newspapers popping up all over the place. Including “free” ones on the internet. Especially ones that offer free shit or coupons or whatever. ---
**Author:** ![Acid\_Lamp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d6d6ee/32.png) [@Acid\_Lamp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acid_Lamp)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2012, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-campaign-finance-reform-ban-all-paid-political-advertising-in-the-u-s/623271/76 "2012-05-28T21:18:28Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > If you say no to the first two and yes to three, what is the difference in principle between them? I’ll take a stab at this. The difference is one of scale and the ability of the average citizen to to tie the speech directly to the speaker. In your first two examples the speech is direct. The signs are placed in the home or homes of a private citizen. He is making a direct speech and taking direct responsibility for it. It is a reasonable assumption that Joe Billboard supports the candidate that he’s placed in his personal domicile. Likewise, Joe’s “speech” is on scale with that of any other citizen. It is about the same as if Joe was at a rally holding a sign. In the third example, Joe’s “speech” is no longer private and direct. It is on commercial property that (one assumes) Joe usually leases out to businesses to use for direct to consumer marketing. Joe takes no responsibility for the content of the ads, it is his business to lease out space. Likewise, There is nothing to tie Joe directly to the ads. I couldn’t look at a billboard and assume that the owner of the sign is using his direct freedom of expression, as it is a commercial property. I have to assume that it is paid for to market something to me instead. Further, the scale of the “speech” is far above the amount of expression able to be produced by any other citizen. Joe isn’t holding a sign at the rally, he’s pirated the times square titantron and is drowning out the rally. Joe is using his disproportionate power and access to change his _private speech_ into _commercial speech_. We regulate the content of commercials for the good of the public because of the scale of their impact. We don’t regulate personal speech because it can only affect a few people at a time, while commercial speech can impact tens of thousands simultaneously; hundreds of thousands over time. By removing political advertising we can force politicians to take direct responsibility for their political speech just like any other citizen. Since they have such great reach through the media, we should ensure that any statement made is one that comes right out of their mouths rather than half truths and propaganda; regardless of what side, belief, or party it endorses. Let the debates show us the important issues. Let townhalls and rallies be the platform for rallying support. ---
**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:** [May 28, 2012, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-campaign-finance-reform-ban-all-paid-political-advertising-in-the-u-s/623271/77 "2012-05-28T21:21:03Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > OK. How is that different from advertising or self-financing? How does it not give a huge advantage in terms of getting the message out to anyone who owns a newspaper? > > Of course, if that remains the rule, then we’re gonna see a lot of newspapers popping up all over the place. Including “free” ones on the internet. Internet newspapers won’t run commercials to show their editorials. News programs won’t blanket all TV commercials with editorials. News programs won’t send leaflets full of lies to everyone in a market with their editorials on it. News programs won’t robocall their editorials to people. News programs won’t push-poll lies to people based on their editorials. Does that make sense? It’s interesting that because you think maybe, if you squint, that newspapers might editorialize, that makes it okay for ten or twenty billionaires to blanket advertising and swing elections to the people who suit them. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2012, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-campaign-finance-reform-ban-all-paid-political-advertising-in-the-u-s/623271/78 "2012-05-28T21:31:48Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Internet newspapers won’t run commercials to show their editorials. News programs won’t blanket all TV commercials with editorials. News programs won’t send leaflets full of lies to everyone in a market with their editorials on it. News programs won’t robocall their editorials to people. News programs won’t push-poll lies to people based on their editorials. > > Does that make sense? > > It’s interesting that because you think maybe, if you squint, that newspapers might editorialize, that makes it okay for ten or twenty billionaires to blanket advertising and swing elections to the people who suit them. That’s not what I think. I think that as long as the government can make or break big fortunes, then big fortunes are going to find a way to influence politics. You won’t get leaflets, you’ll get newspapers. Maybe dozens of them. They’ll have some sort of enticement to get you to read them. They will have web portals with all sorts of goodies on them, where you’ll get a chance to dine with Snooki if you read the editorial. I can think of lots of reasons to make the 1st amendment argument, but others are doing that well already. I just don’t think there is a practical way to eliminate money from campaigns. Remember, the _Citizens United_ ruling came about because of a movie, not because some huge corporation took the government to court over advertising. Advertising is just the easy way to do it. > [@](#): > > I honestly thought you, of all the conservatives on this board, would be the type to not revel in the idea of your side winning _because they can buy the election_. You’re right about only one thing in that statement-- my side did most recently have the $$ advantage in the past presidential election. See **Bricker’s** post, above. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2012, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-campaign-finance-reform-ban-all-paid-political-advertising-in-the-u-s/623271/79 "2012-05-28T21:43:14Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > That’s not what I think. I think that as long as the government can make or break big fortunes, then big fortunes are going to find a way to influence politics. You won’t get leaflets, you’ll get newspapers. Maybe dozens of them. They’ll have some sort of enticement to get you to read them. They will have web portals with all sorts of goodies on them, where you’ll get a chance to dine with Snooki if you read the editorial. > > I can think of lots of reasons to make the 1st amendment argument, but others are doing that well already. I just don’t think there is a practical way to eliminate money from campaigns. Remember, the _Citizens United_ ruling came about because of a movie, not because some huge corporation took the government to court over advertising. Advertising is just the easy way to do it. So because you can imagine other (less efficient) ways to get around it, it shouldn’t be illegal? I can kill someone with a toaster, that doesn’t mean that killing people with guns shouldn’t be illegal. > [@](#): > > You’re right about only one thing in that statement-- my side did most recently have the $$ advantage in the past presidential election. See **Bricker’s** post, above. Even a sensible conservative when faced with Palin would have pause. 😃 In any case, Obama had a money advantage, true. But what Bricker left out (for perfectly honest reasons, I’m sure) is that more money from individual voters is hardly the problem. Getting more money from a few billionaires is where the trouble is. If a million people give you a hundred dollars that’s different than one billionaire giving you a hundred million dollars (and I’m aware that the billionaires aren’t giving directly to the candidate). One is how democracy is supposed to work, the other is nothing but a plutocracy. Personally, I have no problem with donations, if they are capped. Let the billionaire donate $200 or so, good for him or her. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2012, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-campaign-finance-reform-ban-all-paid-political-advertising-in-the-u-s/623271/80 "2012-05-28T22:02:08Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Your argument is nonsense. > > People are manipulated by advertising. Particularly misleading or lying advertising. When you can bombard a market with nothing but negative ads about your opponent, you can change election numbers. And yet, in the poll on this board, 90% of the people (so far) say their decision for whom to vote has never been influenced by political advertisement, and the 10% that say it has, either would vote against the one with negative ads or find that political advertising was informative and helped them in their voting. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-campaign-finance-reform-ban-all-paid-political-advertising-in-the-u-s/623271.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-campaign-finance-reform-ban-all-paid-political-advertising-in-the-u-s/623271.md?page=5)