Here's my idea:
- Thread starter vraiblonde
- Start date
This_person
Well-Known Member
People pay for advertising, this is true. Have you ever, even once in your travels, seen a local TV ad for the local Chinese place? Can you recall seeing an add for heroin that talks about how great it is?
Advertisers have been seriously good at one thing: convincing you that advertising works.
McDonald's is the biggest through market share. Like Coke, they bully their way in and control supply. They're so upset about places like Chik fil A because they don't control that market and it robs them of customers.
Politicians should, for sure be beholden to the people who they represent. Ask Eric Cantor if he'd rather have voters or financial donors.
This_person
Well-Known Member
Old enough to know it's neither stupid nor naive to believe in the constitution.
Of course, many times.
Don't be silly. Rock stars do more to promote drug use in the mindless masses than any paid advertisement could possibly accomplish. They are spokespeople for the depraved, debauched, reckless lifestyle, glamorizing it to the nth degree. And if you think that celebrities don't have influence over our young people....I don't even know what to say about that.
That ^^ is where you jump the fridge and just want to argue, even though you know I'm right.
This_person
Well-Known Member
I never have. We have many here in the county, I have never seen an ad on TV for any.
So, if Sally and Johnny start shooting up, it's not their fault or the parents' fault, it's John Belushi's fault for making it look so good?
The point is, money = speech, and you can not justify taking an American citizen's right to free speech - especially for political purposes. We,the people, have the opportunity to vote and research or not that vote. No matter how many ads are run, you are the voter. The responsibility cannot be delegated. The voters can choose poorly based on ads and party affiliation, but they are still the ones making the choice.
When I worked at Ch 10 I used to make commercials for local Chinese restaurants. No idea what's on there now.
And you're not going to convince me that people in California should be allowed to influence voters in Texas or Montana or anywhere else.
This_person
Well-Known Member
Allowed? Who or what should have the authority to stop them? "Influenced" is best stopped by the person who someone is attempting to influence.
awpitt
Main Streeter
Totally agree. I'll take it a step further. If it can't vote, it can't donate money. Only registered voters should be allowed to donate money to campaigns. Not PACs. Not corporations.
Shoot,,the TV ad for the Chinese restaurant over in Solomons ran for many, many years.
But aren't the PACs, corporations, etc. formed by PEOPLE? You know, the ones that also vote.
awpitt
Main Streeter
Yes and if those people want to donate money, they should be allowed to as individuals.
This_person
Well-Known Member
What if I have a business in a different district from where I live? What if I own two homes, but can only vote where one of them is (legally)? Or, in the latter case, should I get two votes?
Or, what if I just really don't like [insert politician here]? Why shouldn't I be able to run an ad in someone else's district, saying I don't like [insert politician here] if I want to? Does it remove your right to vote FOR [insert politician here] if I run an ad saying I don't like that person?
What difference does it make if I donate money via my personal checkbook, or my company's checkbook?
This_person
Well-Known Member
I stand corrected by both you and @vraiblonde. Not sure it was the key point, but it has certainly garnered a lot of discussion points.
LOL..it's just that the two or three "productions" they did ran over and over for so many years. ;-) Kinda hard to miss...
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
Think of it THIS way - you have a situation that occurred often earlier in Trump's administration where a special election had to be held - and donations POURED IN from all around the country to get some guy elected - and MOST of his support would come from people he would NEVER represent.
While there are notable exceptions - most of the time, more money equals more votes, especially when it's a LOT of money compared to an opponent. I don't see how it is fair to the constituents of a district to have their candidates either COMPLETELY bankrolled by interests outside their area - or worse, ONE of them massively bankrolled while the other plays fair and just takes money from the locals. If money equals speech - it really should be speech or money coming from the people the representative or Senator will actually be representing.
This_person
Well-Known Member
It's fair because none of those people who bankroll can vote in the subject district. They, and they alone, have the ability to choose who gets in regardless of who has the most money.
In short, the basic argument from everyone against freedom of speech in this case seems to rely on a lack of responsibility of the voters of a given district to choose their elected representative. Unless and until it is legal to VOTE outside of one's district, it is not wrong to SPEAK outside of one's district.
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
Well if that's all it takes, maybe we should not permit ANY money into campaigns, from anyone - since it's votes, and votes alone, that elects anyone.
I'm guessing you'd have zero objection to say, a local election where one candidates gets millions from an outside donor, blanketing the airwaves and local media by an order of magnitude. It would NOT translate into an unfair advantage, because money doesn't win elections - votes do.
So - does money have any influence over the outcome of an election - as in, influencing voters? Because if it does not, all those rich contributors are serious fools along with the candidates they support - because that's just money down a drain. Or - it DOES influence or affect the outcome of an election - in which case they ARE effectively casting votes, by proxy - or by physically getting people to polls, as it were.
Money drives campaigns. There were a lot of people running for office last election cycle - but you only heard about a few of them, because they didn't have a lot of money to spend.
This_person
Well-Known Member
I would be VERY against limiting a citizen's right to free speech by not permitting ANY money into campaigns. Free speech - especially political free speech - is essential to a free United States.
Of course money drives campaigns. If a candidate can't support the campaign, they have to withdraw.
So, if YOU like a candidate (the esoteric "you", not Sam-specific "you"), contribute. If the candidate has enough to say to the people in the district the candidate is seeking to represent, the candidate will be able to sustain a campaign.
I don't think advertising works. I have never bought a car I didn't like, or a food I didn't like, or a piece of clothing I didn't like, etc., because an ad on TV told me to. I might be interested in checking it out because an ad helped me learn it exists, but my dollar stays in my wallet unless I choose to spend it because I want to, not because I've been advertised into it. How I spend my money is my responsibility. Same with my vote. If a candidate is not for whom you want to vote, can YOU (Sam-specific now) be advertised into voting for that candidate? Can you be advertised into NOT voting for another candidate based on a TV or internet ad? Or, do you feel it is your responsibility to look into things, get information from more than one (known-biased) source and determine if the information would push you into voting/not voting for someone?
Your vote is YOUR responsibility (back to esoteric). If a voter can be coerced through advertising into voting for someone they otherwise would not support, that is THEIR responsibility, not the government's.
I am severely against the government telling me how I may or may not spend my dollars or how I may speak - especially on political matters.
I would have thought most other people would feel the same way.
I'm okay with local orgs and businesses donating to their local candidate. If the local FOP or Pepper's Pet Pantry wants to endorse a candidate and have a fundraiser to show their support, they should be able to. It's the Facebooks and Googles taking over our elections nationwide that I object to, and these fat cat billionaires flooding money into a district or state that has nothing to do with them to try and get a majority Party in Congress.
Our Congressmen spend more time panhandling money than anything else, and that's wrong. They're there to do the People's work, not continually run for re-election and suck up to rich powerful people who don't even live in their state or district.