5 ms·

Honestly curious here: Wouldn't that lead to a sort of "financial arms race"? Even if you have enough money to buy a hourly running TV ad in Ohio, what if your

by Uehreka 11y ago

Honestly curious here: Wouldn't that lead to a sort of "financial arms race"? Even if you have enough money to buy a hourly running TV ad in Ohio, what if your opponent (who spends less time "working" and more time fundraising) is able to buy an ad that runs every ten minutes? So you shirk your duties to get enough money for a ten-minutely TV ad, but now your opponent is shirking even more and getting huge, well placed Billboards... Not to mention that if the amount of money in politics increases, couldn't advertisers just increase the price of political ads to compensate?

twoodfin 11y ago
Great! We radically underspend on elections relative to their importance. We're talking about a $3T government running a $17T economy. Yet we spend roughly as much in the average election year as Apple's revenue from a week of selling iPhones.
- trhway 11y ago
  and that makes the investment in politicians the most profitable investment available.
MichaelGG 11y ago
Is there any evidence of political advertising helping the country in any way? I've had limited exposure, but every one I've seen is either content free (smiling face, vague promise), or sounds manipulative. Why not completely ban political advertising, requiring information on the parties to be released via their own website plus a master list. As well as equal airtime on news channels if coverage is actually that important to have. That'd also provide a slight chance of breaking this terrible 2 party system the US is stuck in, which seems to prevent any possibility of actual change.
- nickff 11y ago
  You are the one proposing a restriction on a fundamental right, the burden of proof of necessity is on you.
BurningFrog 11y ago
This is how Meg Whitman tried to beat Jerry Brown in 2010 for California Governor. She outspent him 5 to 1¹, and her ads could be seen and heard everywhere. Brown won comfortably. The research shows that a campaign needs enough money to get the message out to the voters. Once that is done, more money does not accomplish much. ¹ from memory

by Uehreka 11y ago

twoodfin 11y ago

Great! We radically underspend on elections relative to their importance. We're talking about a $3T government running a $17T economy. Yet we spend roughly as much in the average election year as Apple's revenue from a week of selling iPhones.

trhway 11y ago
and that makes the investment in politicians the most profitable investment available.

MichaelGG 11y ago

Is there any evidence of political advertising helping the country in any way? I've had limited exposure, but every one I've seen is either content free (smiling face, vague promise), or sounds manipulative. Why not completely ban political advertising, requiring information on the parties to be released via their own website plus a master list. As well as equal airtime on news channels if coverage is actually that important to have. That'd also provide a slight chance of breaking this terrible 2 party system the US is stuck in, which seems to prevent any possibility of actual change.

nickff 11y ago
You are the one proposing a restriction on a fundamental right, the burden of proof of necessity is on you.

BurningFrog 11y ago

This is how Meg Whitman tried to beat Jerry Brown in 2010 for California Governor. She outspent him 5 to 1¹, and her ads could be seen and heard everywhere. Brown won comfortably. The research shows that a campaign needs enough money to get the message out to the voters. Once that is done, more money does not accomplish much. ¹ from memory