Real campaign-finance reform: Ban all paid political advertising in the U.S.

Great Debates
41

Well a newspaper isn’t spamming anyone; I don’t have to buy it, or in the case of a free newspaper, I don’t have to take a copy.
The sandwich boards thing I’d have to see exactly what the concept was to say what my opinion is. Do they speak? Where do they walk around?

Well that’s just it, it shouldn’t entail any power in an idealized democracy.

Now you could argue that an election should work like a free market and if human psychology can be swayed by rich people’s ads, what right does anyone have to intervene?
But my position is more like: If there is a general consensus that this is bad for the election process of course we can agree to rules like with any other contest. Just like we agree to “stand by your ad” even though it means (in a very technical sense) “gagging” people that are unwilling to put the mandatory tagline.

42

I am all in favor of newspaper editorials criticizing the President, as long as it doesn’t happen too often. Once a week is fine - after that, they have to give other voices a chance. If they fail to fulfill their public duty, they must be shut down.

And of course we can pass laws imposing such limits - it is no different from laws about tobacco advertisements.

Regards,
Shodan

43

That’s a ridiculous comparison.

For starters, cigarette advertising is not political speech and protecting political speech is the very essence of the First Amendment.

Moreover, the ban on cigarette advertising only applied to the public airwaves.

The book burners squealing about the repeal of McCain-Feingold and advocating further “reforms” would go much, much farther. They argue that the government has the right to ban books and movies designed to influence elections and prohibit distributing leaflets criticizing political candidates.

Obviously the book burners were furious with the Supreme Court’s decision striking down the FEC’s banning of a documentary critical of Hillary Clinton, but everyone else should be overjoyed at the decision.

Perhaps you feel that the FEC should have banned Fahrenheit 911 as well as the hatchet-job biography of John Kerry, Unfit For Command, but most of us don’t.

44

As long as the government is giving out money to special interests, the special interests will
find a way to buy influence.

45

Since every method of “speech” that is more than just speaking in your voice in the street involves spending money. Even traveling somewhere for a protest involves spending money for transportation.

I am a homeowner. I put up a picture of the candidate I like in my window, with the words “vote for him”. Obviously I paid for that picture to be made. Is this “paid political advertising” and would it be banned under your proposal?

I am a homeowner of two homes. I put up a picture of the candidate I like in the window of both of my homes, with the words “vote for him”. Is this “paid political advertising” and would it be banned under your proposal?

I am a gazillionaire and I own a billboard company. I put up a picture of the candidate I like on ten thousand billboards I own, with the words “vote for him”. Is this “paid political advertising” and would it be banned under your proposal?

If you say no to the first two and yes to three, what is the difference in principle between them?

46

The right to privacy exists in the Constitution, and it means that the government can’t regulate abortion during the first trimester.

The Constitution, with words written in 1789 and 1867, means that the government can’t regulate abortion during the first trimester.

Nothing done by the Supreme Court in the past 12 years comes close to that in terms of results-oriented.

47

clearly, as a gazillionaire, your politics are wrong (unless your last name rhymes with ‘Boros’).

48

Are you under the impression that Democrats or Liberals want this to be allowed for them?

Also, I know you’re a strong ideological Republican, but honestly, do you really think that unlimited political money is a good thing? Would you think it was a good thing if most rich people were Democrats?

49

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.

50

No one has answered my previous post: Is the criminal justice system broken because rich people like O.J. can hire a “dream team” of lawyers, but I have to go with the public defender? Should we limit how much people can spend on attorneys?

Is the property system broken since rich people can own more property and be exempt from search and seizure on their own private beach when I have to go to the public beach and have my cooler inspected for booze?

51

Wah, I don’t like people disagreeing with me. Wah, make em stop! Wah, they’re radical liberals with that most horrible things, and AGENDA!

Gee, that’s an easy form of argument.

52

Our current President got elected strictly because he was running behind Dubya the Fuckup President, who got us enmeshed in two unpopular wars in the Mideast and totally fucked the economy. Anyone halfway competent as a politician could have beaten Bush.

53

It kinda DOES matter who gets the advantage, if one side ALWAYS gets the advantage, and one side ALWAYS DOES get the advantage in terms of campaign contributions in America. The right. So by it’s nature, big money is politicized, and what you are actually arguing for is a perpetual built in advantage for the right. I understand why a conservative might find this attractive, I do not understand why they think they will ever convince anyone else that it is fair.

54

The motivation for banning unlimited paid political advertising is fundamentally based on a very cynical view of democracy.

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. Political advertising should ultimately make very little difference to the opinion of these people, because they are willing and able to spend the effort to fact-check whatever ads they see, and likely to view any political advertising with a critical eye. Especially now with the internet, it is easier than ever for voters to research candidates and find facts for themselves, regardless of the crap they see on TV or billboards.

The argument for banning paid political advertising seems to presume that, among the voting population, these people are outnumbered by idiots who vote using the same thought process that leads them to buy a carton of Miller Lite because they saw Miller Lite on a billboard on the way to the liquor store.

Thus, the argument goes, candidates who can muster the funds to run more ads can essentially buy themselves the election, because regardless of the viability of their positions, most people will just vote for whoever ran more ads. Cue moaning, whimpering, etc. about how it is unfair that Party A is able to sway the uninformed idiot vote in this way, and it would really be more just if Party B were equally able to sway the idiot vote in their favor.

Now, this may well be true, and if true, it may well have serious consequences for the country. But let’s not pretend that the argument for banning private speech in elections is based on some kind of shining moral standard for achieving an ideal democracy. Fundamentally, the argument boils down to “Elections are essentially decided by uninformed voters who get their opinions from paid political ads, and it’s unfair that the other party is able to buy more ads!” You are essentially conceding that elections are not won based on positions, values and facts, but on something akin to a marketing campaign for a new type of dish detergent, and complaining that the other candidate has a larger marketing budget than you.

I mean, yes, we can solve this “problem” if we wanted. But the idea of democracy only works if you are willing to place some stock in the ability of ordinary people to make a rational choice for the future of the country. If you really think that paid political advertising is such a huge problem, you’re admitting that democracy has failed in the US, and you’re just whining that the system should fail in a way that is more favorable to your positions.

55

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.

Can you please link me to the posts you made at the time expressing your discomfort at that disparity?

“Fair” means equality of opportunity, not equality of result. I will consistently fare poorly against Scottie Pippin in a free throw contest. That does not mean the free throw contest is unfair. Obama outclassed McCain two to one in fundraising. Good for him.

56

To clarify - I am not denying that the uninformed idiot bloc exists, or that some close elections can be swayed by ads aiming to influence the uniformed idiot bloc. But the idea that a good candidate who would otherwise win soundly can be defeated because of ads paid for by a few wealthy wingnuts on the other side represents a pretty dim view of the average voter. If the margin is that close, maybe the good candidate wasn’t so good after all?

57

(emphasis added)
A bit of a bait and switch there. No-one’s talking about banning all paid political advertising.

We’re talking about limiting in some fashion what a single interest group can buy. There is no freedom of spam and letting one group hammer out a point repeatedly is not conducive to the kind of informed discussion that you’re outlining.

If that were true you wouldn’t need advertising. But that’s not human nature and in practice you need some structure for campaigns to get as close to that ideal as possible.
For example, the “stand by your ad” rule that I alluded. Arguably that rule is based on a low opinion of voters, but who cares, the rule makes elections more informed and less of a slanging match.

58

It’s only the title of this thread:

“Real campaign-finance reform: Ban all paid political advertising in the U.S.”

59

Yikes, sorry.

Well, I disagree with the OP as well then. Not that I believe that banning all paid political adverts necessarily stifles free speech – many European countries have a very informed electorate without this kind of lever. But I don’t think it’s feasible to attempt in the US, nor consistent with how US rules on other forms of advertising (e.g. medical ads to the consumer).

60

Here are some studies:

Campaign finance restrictions like contribution limits are often promoted as a democratic good, touted as a method for ‘‘leveling the playing field’’ between
incumbents and challengers (International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance 2002). The evidence we present here suggests otherwise, showing
that these limits disproportionately handicap challengers. Given that challengers already face an uphill battle against incumbents, depriving them of the funds they need to compete virtually sentences challengers to defeat.

As the foregoing analysis has shown, candidates for federal office require substantial resources to make themselves known to the voters of their district, even as the benefits of such funding are subject to diminishing marginal returns. For candidates who have reached the competitive spending threshold—appropriate to the state or district in which they are running—more spending by themselves or their opponents does not meaningfully impact their chances of electoral success; that is, elections can’t be bought.
…
Second, the resources of qualified candidates should be adequate —but they need not be equal—to provide a vigorous campaign that is not defined by money. Although parity in candidate funding is a common objective in public financing reforms, there is little evidence that candidates who outspend a competitively-funded opponent are more likely to win.
…
Finally, **reforms aimed at limiting candidate spending or restricting access to funds are likely to have an adverse effect on challengers, for whom the need for funding is most pronounced, and may even harden the incumbency advantage to the detriment of competition
**