The era of swiftboat politics

[Onceler]

O'Reilly was lamenting the "dangerous influence" of George Soros on his show, and the fact that Soros is going to spend well over $300 million to define McCain in the most negative way possible, which - of course - is a terrible thing for America.

To which I said, "boo hoo," remembering - of course - what a fun little group called "Swiftboat veterans for the truth" did to John Kerry.

But it really got me thinking: this whole era of 527's and hundreds of millions being spent to define people who Americans don't really know in the most negative light - often dishonestly - SUCKS. These groups end up spending more than the candidate can ever muster, and are extremely effective in defining them in a way that, when pressed, most on both sides would admit is not fair, and not a true reflection of the candidate by a long, long shot.

There should be no money at all in American politics. Give some public financing to both campaigns to run ads & their organizations, allow for free airtime, debates & equal print media space, and disallow any other advertising from any other organization that is related to the candidates in any way.

 

[Diuretic]

Best government money can buy.

 

[uscitizen]

O'Reilly was lamenting the "dangerous influence" of George Soros on his show, and the fact that Soros is going to spend well over $300 million to define McCain in the most negative way possible, which - of course - is a terrible thing for America.

To which I said, "boo hoo," remembering - of course - what a fun little group called "Swiftboat veterans for the truth" did to John Kerry.

But it really got me thinking: this whole era of 527's and hundreds of millions being spent to define people who Americans don't really know in the most negative light - often dishonestly - SUCKS. These groups end up spending more than the candidate can ever muster, and are extremely effective in defining them in a way that, when pressed, most on both sides would admit is not fair, and not a true reflection of the candidate by a long, long shot.

There should be no money at all in American politics. Give some public financing to both campaigns to run ads & their organizations, allow for free airtime, debates & equal print media space, and disallow any other advertising from any other organization that is related to the candidates in any way.

I agree. And to extend on the removal of money from politics. I would like to see all paid lobbists banned.

You can lobby, but you can't be paid for it.

 

[Bonestorm]

O'Reilly was lamenting the "dangerous influence" of George Soros on his show, and the fact that Soros is going to spend well over $300 million to define McCain in the most negative way possible, which - of course - is a terrible thing for America.

To which I said, "boo hoo," remembering - of course - what a fun little group called "Swiftboat veterans for the truth" did to John Kerry.

But it really got me thinking: this whole era of 527's and hundreds of millions being spent to define people who Americans don't really know in the most negative light - often dishonestly - SUCKS. These groups end up spending more than the candidate can ever muster, and are extremely effective in defining them in a way that, when pressed, most on both sides would admit is not fair, and not a true reflection of the candidate by a long, long shot.

There should be no money at all in American politics. Give some public financing to both campaigns to run ads & their organizations, allow for free airtime, debates & equal print media space, and disallow any other advertising from any other organization that is related to the candidates in any way.

Actually, Soros has said he plans to spend about $40 million for that purpose so O'Reilly is only off by about a factor (get it) of 7.5.

Any chance O'Reilly mentioned Sheldon Adelson or Freedom's Watch who actually do plan to spend around $250 million for Republicans in this year's election?

 

[cawacko]

O'Reilly was lamenting the "dangerous influence" of George Soros on his show, and the fact that Soros is going to spend well over $300 million to define McCain in the most negative way possible, which - of course - is a terrible thing for America.

To which I said, "boo hoo," remembering - of course - what a fun little group called "Swiftboat veterans for the truth" did to John Kerry.

But it really got me thinking: this whole era of 527's and hundreds of millions being spent to define people who Americans don't really know in the most negative light - often dishonestly - SUCKS. These groups end up spending more than the candidate can ever muster, and are extremely effective in defining them in a way that, when pressed, most on both sides would admit is not fair, and not a true reflection of the candidate by a long, long shot.

There should be no money at all in American politics. Give some public financing to both campaigns to run ads & their organizations, allow for free airtime, debates & equal print media space, and disallow any other advertising from any other organization that is related to the candidates in any way.

The irony of course is 527's came about (no) thanks to McCain and Feingold. The media was in love with them when they passed their bill and instead of getting money out of politics all it did was have it go from the candidates to these 527's who are even less accountable for what gets said.

 

[Onceler]

Actually, Soros has said he plans to spend about $40 million for that purpose so O'Reilly is only off by about a factor (get it) of 7.5.

Any chance O'Reilly mentioned Sheldon Adelson or Freedom's Watch who actually do plan to spend around $250 million for Republicans in this year's election?

No, he didn't. As a matter of fact, he said he didn't know of any right-wing organizations that were similar, and said that as soon as someone brought any to his attention, they would report on it. Stunning.

Still, this is a major problem on both sides.

 

[Kamala Trump]

Stifling free speech is not the answer.

 

[uscitizen]

The selling of free speech in the media sucks.

 

[Jarod]

I really wish we had an answer to this problem. The internet helps a bit, but its not doing what I was hoping it would. Maybe with the confluence of internet and television this problem will be assisted.

 

[uscitizen]

I really wish we had an answer to this problem. The internet helps a bit, but its not doing what I was hoping it would. Maybe with the confluence of internet and television this problem will be assisted.

Nope the net will just be taken over by MSM.

 

[evince]

free airtime.
a Media that will actually investigate and tell you when the 527s are lying their asses off.
You can lobby but you can not even give someone a stick of gum.
You can talk and that is all.
The free airtime would reduce greatly the cost of running for president.
If we did it in such a way that they could only use the airtime given them and could not purchase airtime we could then change the way 527s opperate. I dont think you can tell peopel they cant band together and make their voice heard. The monied interests can just this far more easily than a larger group of ctizens. Maybe if we forced them to up front tell some facts about who they really are before each add for full discloseur.

 

[Good Luck]

Getting money out of politics is a sticky mess.

"Free" airtime won't do much except cost the tax payers a bunch, since it is anything but free. Running a television station costs money, and that money is normally paid for by ad revenues. Or is the government simply going to commandeer broadcast stations for the "good of the people"?

But, anyway, addressing the smear campaigns, for one solution, I suggest that we apply truth in advertising requirements to campaign ads. And then ENFORCE the piss out of the truth in advertising requirements. Want to say something about a candidate in a public ad? Better be able to prove what you say. (And that includes the good as well as smears.) If it turns out the ad is misleading - even "accidentally" - then the sponsor of the ad, whether a 527 or the campaign office of the candidate, pays through the nose in fines. And I mean BIG fines, like a million even for first offense, 2 million for second, 10 for third, etc.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Getting money out of politics is a sticky mess.

"Free" airtime won't do much except cost the tax payers a bunch, since it is anything but free. Running a television station costs money, and that money is normally paid for by ad revenues. Or is the government simply going to commandeer broadcast stations for the "good of the people"?

But, anyway, addressing the smear campaigns, for one solution, I suggest that we apply truth in advertising requirements to campaign ads. And then ENFORCE the piss out of the truth in advertising requirements. Want to say something about a candidate in a public ad? Better be able to prove what you say. (And that includes the good as well as smears.) If it turns out the ad is misleading - even "accidentally" - then the sponsor of the ad, whether a 527 or the campaign office of the candidate, pays through the nose in fines. And I mean BIG fines, like a million even for first offense, 2 million for second, 10 for third, etc.

LOL, a million dollar fine on a 50K challengers budget? Wow, what a great incumbent protection system.

Anyway, such fascism has been declared unconstitutional in the only state it was tried, Washington. The US has the best free speech protections in the entire US, and a person can only be sued for libel if the lie was malicious and they knew specifically that it was a lie beforehand.

 

[Good Luck]

LOL, a million dollar fine on a 50K challengers budget? Wow, what a great incumbent protection system.

Anyway, such fascism has been declared unconstitutional in the only state it was tried, Washington. The US has the best free speech protections in the entire US, and a person can only be sued for libel if the lie was malicious and they knew specifically that it was a lie beforehand.

LOL, what a braindead dweeb you must be. Fascism for requiring truth in advertising?

What's the matter? Don't want to hear truth when talking politics? Why would you not want truth from political candidates? Afraid the ones you support would have nothing to say if they can't lie about it?

We require reasonable accuracy in ads when selling us products. (although it is minimally enforced) The requirement was enacted so people can make informed decisions about the products they buy. One cannot make an informed decision from falsified information. There is nothing unconstitutional about requiring truth in advertising. That was settled long ago. Advertising is speech for a specific purpose, and as such needs to be truthful to meet its purpose.

Seems to me deciding who we want to run the government is just a little more important than deciding which deoderant to use, so it would make sense that it is more important that political ads be truthful.

A political challenger only needs to worry about being fined if they lie. An incumbent could afford to tell more lies, but then they'd be caught out when the fines are levied. In case you haven't noticed, but getting caught in a lie isn't so good for the politician these days, as Clinton has so aptly been demonstrating.

As for free speech, tell all the lies all you want. No one is stopping you from saying anything you want that does not deliberately incite a violent response against others.

But if you are so intent on lying, just don't buy an ad to do so. It's easier and cheaper to use the opinion page.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

LOL, what a braindead dweeb you must be. Fascism for requiring truth in advertising?

What's the matter? Don't want to hear truth when talking politics? Why would you not want truth from political candidates? Afraid the ones you support would have nothing to say if they can't lie about it?

We require reasonable accuracy in ads when selling us products. (although it is minimally enforced) The requirement was enacted so people can make informed decisions about the products they buy. One cannot make an informed decision from falsified information. There is nothing unconstitutional about requiring truth in advertising. That was settled long ago. Advertising is speech for a specific purpose, and as such needs to be truthful to meet its purpose.

Seems to me deciding who we want to run the government is just a little more important than deciding which deoderant to use, so it would make sense that it is more important that political ads be truthful.

A political challenger only needs to worry about being fined if they lie. An incumbent could afford to tell more lies, but then they'd be caught out when the fines are levied. In case you haven't noticed, but getting caught in a lie isn't so good for the politician these days, as Clinton has so aptly been demonstrating.

As for free speech, tell all the lies all you want. No one is stopping you from saying anything you want that does not deliberately incite a violent response against others.

But if you are so intent on lying, just don't buy an ad to do so. It's easier and cheaper to use the opinion page.

Of course it makes sense. Everything makes sense. But your scheme is unconstitutional. Sorry.

 

[ib1yysguy]

Take all money out of politics, unless it's actual gold coins (cause otherwise it's just counterfeit anyway according to RS) with a picture of Ron Paul stamped on the front.

 

[Good Luck]

Of course it makes sense. Everything makes sense. But your scheme is unconstitutional. Sorry.

While commercial speech is entitled to First Amendment protection, the Court has clearly held that it is not wholly undifferentiable from other forms of expression; it has remarked on the commonsense differences between speech that does no more than propose a commercial transaction and other varieties. The Court has developed a four-pronged test to measure the validity of restraints upon commercial expression.

Under the first prong of the test as originally formulated, certain commercial speech is not entitled to protection; the informational function of advertising is the First Amendment concern and if it does not accurately inform the public about lawful activity, it can be suppressed.

The first prong of the Central Hudson test means that false, deceptive, or misleading advertisements need not be permitted; government may require that a commercial message appear in such a form, or include such additional information, warnings, and disclaimers, as are necessary to prevent deception.

http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/constitution/

As I stated, truth in advertising has already been upheld. Extending the concept of truth in advertising to ads which make claims about a politician (either against them or in support of them) can be made under the same principle that the public's right to accurate information supercedes the first amendment right of freedom of speech.

 

[Kamala Trump]

free airtime.
a Media that will actually investigate and tell you when the 527s are lying their asses off.
You can lobby but you can not even give someone a stick of gum.
You can talk and that is all.
The free airtime would reduce greatly the cost of running for president.
If we did it in such a way that they could only use the airtime given them and could not purchase airtime we could then change the way 527s opperate. I dont think you can tell peopel they cant band together and make their voice heard. The monied interests can just this far more easily than a larger group of ctizens. Maybe if we forced them to up front tell some facts about who they really are before each add for full discloseur.

I don't think you can tell people they cannot purchase outside time. Do you even realize what a nazi you are?

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/constitution/

As I stated, truth in advertising has already been upheld. Extending the concept of truth in advertising to ads which make claims about a politician (either against them or in support of them) can be made under the same principle that the public's right to accurate information supercedes the first amendment right of freedom of speech.

And you're a fascist. Sorry.

Google Washingtons struck down law that was far less severe/fascist than yours.

 

[Epicurus]

http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/constitution/

As I stated, truth in advertising has already been upheld. Extending the concept of truth in advertising to ads which make claims about a politician (either against them or in support of them) can be made under the same principle that the public's right to accurate information supercedes the first amendment right of freedom of speech.

That would require a massive body to oversee, and would still be virtually impossible to do.

Truth in politics is a slippery thing. Ads can be factually accurate but highly misleading, much like all arguments by Cypress.