# 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:** 5
**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:** [May 28, 2012, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-campaign-finance-reform-ban-all-paid-political-advertising-in-the-u-s/623271/81 "2012-05-28T22:02:52Z")
I notice that all the people advocating these reforms have yet to explain how you can ban movies and books and prohibit people from distributing leaflets criticizing politicians without violating the First Amendment. Perhaps they could so. I don’t agree with book-burning, but I’m happy to hear from people explaining how it doesn’t violate the Constitution. ---
**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, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-campaign-finance-reform-ban-all-paid-political-advertising-in-the-u-s/623271/82 "2012-05-28T22:06:31Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > 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. People on this board tend to not be low information voters. A third of the voters in this country are swayed one way or the other each election. You do understand that a poll of a given group of people can’t necessarily be extrapolated to the public at large, right? No one is expecting you to get all the votes, but if you can get a chunk of the undecideds that can sway elections your way. ---
**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, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-campaign-finance-reform-ban-all-paid-political-advertising-in-the-u-s/623271/83 "2012-05-28T22:07:36Z")
> [@Acid\_Lamp](#): > > 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. Huh? In all three examples the signs are posted on someone’s private property, directly. > [@](#): > > Joe takes no responsibility for the content of the ads, it is his business to lease out space. No. Joe, personally, put up those signs. He didn’t get paid to put them up. He put them up himself. Personally. > [@](#): > > 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. So, just because you make wrong assumptions, you’re free to violate the man’s freedom of speech? > [@](#): > > Further, the scale of the “speech” is far above the amount of expression able to be produced by any other citizen. Just like the scale of the “speech” of the one with two houses on busy thoroughfares is far above the amount of expression of someone living in a studio apartment somewhere in the boonies. And yet you have no problem there. > [@](#): > > 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. Yet Joe’s speech on that ten thousand billboards is not commercial. It is his private property, and he puts up his political expression on it. No one paid him to do it. ---
**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, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-campaign-finance-reform-ban-all-paid-political-advertising-in-the-u-s/623271/84 "2012-05-28T22:10:23Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > People on this board tend to not be low information voters. A third of the voters in this country are swayed one way or the other each election. > > You do understand that a poll of a given group of people can’t necessarily be extrapolated to the public at large, right? I know. It is the “We are the smart ones, but those unwashed masses, they have to be protected from themselves” liberal attitude that I see so often. ---
**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, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-campaign-finance-reform-ban-all-paid-political-advertising-in-the-u-s/623271/85 "2012-05-28T22:11:33Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > I notice that all the people advocating these reforms have yet to explain how you can ban movies and books and prohibit people from distributing leaflets criticizing politicians without violating the First Amendment. > > Perhaps they could so. > > I don’t agree with book-burning, but I’m happy to hear from people explaining how it doesn’t violate the Constitution. Uh, you could have a law stating that you can’t.\* Tah-Dah!\* Also, calling this book-burning is hardly reasoned and dispassionate. ---
**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, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-campaign-finance-reform-ban-all-paid-political-advertising-in-the-u-s/623271/86 "2012-05-28T22:12:15Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > 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. Killing is always illegal. Political speech isn’t. I’m not seeing the analogy. > [@](#): > > 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). But that’s not what the OP is arguing for. He’s arguing for banning all paid advertising, no matter the source. > [@](#): > > 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. Suppose the billionaire wants to make a downloadable, youtube movie about the life of Barack Obama. Is he allowed to do that? Under what restrictions, if any, would he have to operate? ---
**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, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-campaign-finance-reform-ban-all-paid-political-advertising-in-the-u-s/623271/87 "2012-05-28T22:14:20Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > I know. It is the “We are the smart ones, but those unwashed masses, they have to be protected from themselves” liberal attitude that I see so often. So, you don’t believe that self-selected group polls shouldn’t be extrapolated to the populace at large? What else don’t you believe in, evolution, global warming, physics or chemistry? Again, you are more than free to not understand that a poll of people who follow politics can’t be generalized to the populace at large, who don’t follow politics, but you shouldn’t expect people to respect your opinion. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2012, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-campaign-finance-reform-ban-all-paid-political-advertising-in-the-u-s/623271/88 "2012-05-28T22:22:35Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Always, huh? > > Barack Obama (D) raised $778,642,962 and spent $10.94 for every vote he got. John McCain (R) spent $383,913,834, only $5.97 per vote he got… In your haste to defend truth and justice, you neglected to post your cite. This could leave the unfortunate presumption that your citation, while based upon fact, is based upon facts that are given a generous and lenient interpretation. Just for one “for instance”, it this only about the money the campaigns spent, or does it include “outside” money spent on behalf of a candidate, but not by the candidate? > [@](#): > > …Can you please link me to the posts you made at the time expressing your discomfort at that disparity?.. That might be necessary if your “facts” were met with universal acceptance. Were they? ---
**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, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-campaign-finance-reform-ban-all-paid-political-advertising-in-the-u-s/623271/89 "2012-05-28T22:27:03Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Killing is always illegal. Political speech isn’t. I’m not seeing the analogy. Political speech shouldn’t be illegal. But spending unlimited money projecting it should be. The analogy was based on the idea that because editorials will still exist it is somehow impossible to curtail other types of political advertising. > [@](#): > > But that’s not what the OP is arguing for. He’s arguing for banning all paid advertising, no matter the source. And I’d be perfectly okay with that. I was talking about Bricker’s nonsense about Obama having more money (from more voters) as somehow sinister or equal to ten or twenty billionaires deciding an election unilaterally. > [@](#): > > Suppose the billionaire wants to make a downloadable, youtube movie about the life of Barack Obama. Is he allowed to do that? Under what restrictions, if any, would he have to operate? Personally, I’d say that he can’t promote it legally or sell tickets to it. If I want to produce the film,\* “Mitt Romney, Rat-Fuck Mormon”\* and post it on Youtube, I’m not sure how anyone could stop me. But I shouldn’t be able to buy commercials directing people to it or do mailings with the URL. If blogs pick it up and it hits facebook, that’s a different thing than TV ads or the like. ---
**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, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-campaign-finance-reform-ban-all-paid-political-advertising-in-the-u-s/623271/90 "2012-05-28T23:05:28Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > People on this board tend to not be low information voters. A third of the voters in this country are swayed one way or the other each election. > > You do understand that a poll of a given group of people can’t necessarily be extrapolated to the public at large, right? Well, it can be, depending on the nature of the sample; but, you’re right, the Doper crowd is not a representative random sample of the general American public (in fact, we’re not all Americans). ---
**Author:** ![fruitbat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/58f4c7/32.png) [@fruitbat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fruitbat)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2012, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-campaign-finance-reform-ban-all-paid-political-advertising-in-the-u-s/623271/91 "2012-05-28T23:16:07Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Political speech shouldn’t be illegal. But spending unlimited money projecting it should be. > > The analogy was based on the idea that because editorials will still exist it is somehow impossible to curtail other types of political advertising. > > And I’d be perfectly okay with that. I was talking about Bricker’s nonsense about Obama having more money (from more voters) as somehow sinister or equal to ten or twenty billionaires deciding an election unilaterally. > > Personally, I’d say that he can’t promote it legally or sell tickets to it. > > If I want to produce the film,\* “Mitt Romney, Rat-Fuck Mormon”\* and post it on Youtube, I’m not sure how anyone could stop me. But I shouldn’t be able to buy commercials directing people to it or do mailings with the URL. > > If blogs pick it up and it hits facebook, that’s a different thing than TV ads or the like. My god . . . This has me imagining a terrible dystopian future. So If I am un-happy with my government I can make a movie, or write a book expressing myself? However, if i attempt to disseminate the information then I am breaking the law. Where does this eagerness to give away America’s most fundamental freedom come from? You may think it is hyperbole, but i find it truly disturbing, the idea that speech is ok, so long as you set the limits as to who can hear it and how it can be disseminated. Fuck that. Which of the other amendments should we gut while we are at it? Religion is OK, but only if it is kept in church, so shall we allow for the free practice of religion, so long it is done within some wise and well defined limits? This was the FIRST amendment for a reason, it has worked just fine for two hundred odd years, eviscerating it because of the belief that our momentary political problems cant be solved any other way is no different than the Right’s attempt to bring prayer into schools or stop the burning of the flag. ---
**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, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-campaign-finance-reform-ban-all-paid-political-advertising-in-the-u-s/623271/92 "2012-05-28T23:16:28Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > So, you don’t believe that self-selected group polls shouldn’t be extrapolated to the populace at large? I believe that you should extend the same respect to populace at large that you extend to the self-selected group. And not regard them as silly children who are easily swayed while you and your friends are the smart ones. ---
**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, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-campaign-finance-reform-ban-all-paid-political-advertising-in-the-u-s/623271/93 "2012-05-28T23:19:15Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > I believe that you should extend the same respect to populace at large that you extend to the self-selected group. And not regard them as silly children who are easily swayed while you and your friends are the smart ones. I’m not suggesting that I be held to laws that others are not. Do you honestly believe this line of argument, or do you just not have anything else to give? ---
**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, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-campaign-finance-reform-ban-all-paid-political-advertising-in-the-u-s/623271/94 "2012-05-28T23:23:34Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Do you honestly believe this line of argument, or do you just not have anything else to give? I honestly believe that to argue what you and **BrainGlutton** are arguing is indicative of enormous contempt you hold for a great portion of US populace. ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2012, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-campaign-finance-reform-ban-all-paid-political-advertising-in-the-u-s/623271/95 "2012-05-28T23:23:44Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Suppose the billionaire wants to make a downloadable, youtube movie about the life of Barack Obama. Is he allowed to do that? Under what restrictions, if any, would he have to operate? You mean like that anti-GWB movie in 2004? Anyway, since we’ve come to the conclusion that restricting political advertising is unconstitutional, how about the reverse: banning all press coverage? People can say or spend what they want, but the press can’t cover it. The government owns the airwaves, so it can say that equal access = no access, right? Wouldn’t stop hoardings or hustings or conventions or rallies, but those are more traditional, personal, methods of politics. And outside the home. I believe France has something along those lines. ---
**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, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-campaign-finance-reform-ban-all-paid-political-advertising-in-the-u-s/623271/96 "2012-05-28T23:23:56Z")
> [@fruitbat](#): > > My god . . . This has me imagining a terrible dystopian future. So If I am un-happy with my government I can make a movie, or write a book expressing myself? However, if i attempt to disseminate the information then I am breaking the law. Where does this eagerness to give away America’s most fundamental freedom come from? > > You may think it is hyperbole, but i find it truly disturbing, the idea that speech is ok, so long as you set the limits as to who can hear it and how it can be disseminated. Fuck that. Which of the other amendments should we gut while we are at it? Religion is OK, but only if it is kept in church, so shall we allow for the free practice of religion, so long it is done within some wise and well defined limits? > > This was the FIRST amendment for a reason, it has worked just fine for two hundred odd years, eviscerating it because of the belief that our momentary political problems cant be solved any other way is no different than the Right’s attempt to bring prayer into schools or stop the burning of the flag. It was the \*first \*amendment because the first two weren’t ratified, as I recall. In any case, you are simply resorting to histrionics. There are laws that limit speech now. I’m sure you’re aware of the crowded theater fire thing, right? The question is does the limit serve a public good. And yes, not letting the ten or twenty richest people in America decide the elections is probably a good thing. ---
**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, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-campaign-finance-reform-ban-all-paid-political-advertising-in-the-u-s/623271/97 "2012-05-28T23:25:02Z")
> [@Absolute](#): > > Democracy is based on the idea that the average voters are informed citizens, who evaluate the facts, positions and personality of each candidate, and make a rational choice based on who they believe would be best for the country. No, it isn’t. Democracy means making the state do what the people want it to do, that is all. Democracy is not a theory of **good** government, it is a theory of **legitimate** government – that sovereignty over the state is ultimately vested in its people collectively, because, well, who else? It is not based on the assumption that they know what is good for them, but that no selection of the people can be entirely trusted to be wise enough or good enough to make that call for the whole. Or, as William F. Buckley put it, “Democracy is not an IQ test, it is a way of saying no.” (One could add with as much force, “or saying yes.”) Or, as H.L. Mencken put it, “Democracy is the idea that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.” And if you don’t trust the think-they-know-best “liberal elites” to dominate that system, still less should you trust the eye-on-the-bottom-line business elites. ---
**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, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-campaign-finance-reform-ban-all-paid-political-advertising-in-the-u-s/623271/98 "2012-05-28T23:31:47Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > I honestly believe that to argue what you and **BrainGlutton** are arguing is indicative of enormous contempt you hold for a great portion of US populace. Not at all. In any large group you’re going to find people with different interests. What is surprising is that you think a self-selected poll, which is self reported (after all, people are saying they aren’t swayed, we don’t know if they actually are) is somehow an intelligent way to predict the actions of a vast majority of people. That suggests you’re simply ignorant about how polling works. And because you don’t understand it, you’re coming up with a vapid argument about holding Americans in contempt. I don’t hold America-at-large with contempt. I hold the sort of people who think buying elections is all well-and-good in contempt. ---
**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, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-campaign-finance-reform-ban-all-paid-political-advertising-in-the-u-s/623271/99 "2012-05-28T23:32:45Z")
> [@Absolute](#): > > If you think this is true to such a degree that it merits completely changing the meaning of freedom in this country . . . That is **not** being proposed. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![fruitbat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/58f4c7/32.png) [@fruitbat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fruitbat)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2012, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-campaign-finance-reform-ban-all-paid-political-advertising-in-the-u-s/623271/100 "2012-05-28T23:34:00Z")
The laws that limit speech are very well defined and largely to promote public safety. Yelling “fire” in a crowded theatre is not self expression. What you are trying to ban is more like not being able to yell “Obama sucks!” in a crowded marketplace. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-campaign-finance-reform-ban-all-paid-political-advertising-in-the-u-s/623271.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-campaign-finance-reform-ban-all-paid-political-advertising-in-the-u-s/623271.md?page=6)