4 ms·

Advertising, in any market, is a race to the bottom (to the top, really, in terms of cost). If everyone spends 100% on advertising, only the advertising platfor

by tomp 11y ago

Advertising, in any market, is a race to the bottom (to the top, really, in terms of cost). If everyone spends 100% on advertising, only the advertising platforms benefit, not the advertisers themselves. It would be much better to ban all lobbying, so each candidate would only have a very small amount o fmoney to spend on elections, and people would be less manipulated into voting them.

marcoperaza 11y ago
>It would be much better to ban all lobbying, so each candidate would only have a very small amount o fmoney to spend on elections, and people would be less manipulated into voting them. I can make up my own mind for who to vote for. I don't need or want anyone to protect me from persuasion. I can't think of an idea more insidious to a free society, that the government needs to control the expression of ideas to protect people from "manipulation".
- nitrogen 11y ago
  I find the idea that a few powerful people have such enormous influence that nobody else's ideas matter to be more insidious than the idea of a government that tries to level the playing field. Edit: I wanted to add that I feel like money being treated as speech is the same as running an organization that goes with whatever the loudest man in the room has to say, rather than the best ideas. Have you ever been in a meeting where someone with a big voice and a small brain steals all the airtime by never stopping talking?
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
BurningFrog 11y ago
A system where no candidate has campaign money does not produce an even playing field. It gives the incumbent and/or famous candidate an even bigger advantage than now. Indeed, I think the best explanation for the campaign finance laws of the recent decades is that they're intended to protect the incumbents that enacted them. Your argument rests on the idea that the candidate with the most money always wins. This is the "common sense" model, but it's not supported by empirical data. In reality election victory is related to money the same way individual happiness is: Without money a person will not be happy, and a candidate will not be elected. But once you have enough money for a comfortable life/campaign, more money does little to improve things. Once you've made all voters aware of who you are and what you stand for, your campaign has done the advertising it needs. Telling them again and again will change very little. Jeb Bush is the latest of many well funded failed candidates showing this.

by tomp 11y ago

marcoperaza 11y ago

>It would be much better to ban all lobbying, so each candidate would only have a very small amount o fmoney to spend on elections, and people would be less manipulated into voting them. I can make up my own mind for who to vote for. I don't need or want anyone to protect me from persuasion. I can't think of an idea more insidious to a free society, that the government needs to control the expression of ideas to protect people from "manipulation".

nitrogen 11y ago
I find the idea that a few powerful people have such enormous influence that nobody else's ideas matter to be more insidious than the idea of a government that tries to level the playing field. Edit: I wanted to add that I feel like money being treated as speech is the same as running an organization that goes with whatever the loudest man in the room has to say, rather than the best ideas. Have you ever been in a meeting where someone with a big voice and a small brain steals all the airtime by never stopping talking?
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]

BurningFrog 11y ago

A system where no candidate has campaign money does not produce an even playing field. It gives the incumbent and/or famous candidate an even bigger advantage than now. Indeed, I think the best explanation for the campaign finance laws of the recent decades is that they're intended to protect the incumbents that enacted them. Your argument rests on the idea that the candidate with the most money always wins. This is the "common sense" model, but it's not supported by empirical data. In reality election victory is related to money the same way individual happiness is: Without money a person will not be happy, and a candidate will not be elected. But once you have enough money for a comfortable life/campaign, more money does little to improve things. Once you've made all voters aware of who you are and what you stand for, your campaign has done the advertising it needs. Telling them again and again will change very little. Jeb Bush is the latest of many well funded failed candidates showing this.