> because there's not one single place controlling your entire feed That's true with cable too. > Straight up outlaw such clips that are an attack on a candid

> because there's not one single place controlling your entire feed That's true with cable too. > Straight up outlaw such clips that are an attack on a candidate. What constitutes an attack? Is a clip pointing out that a candidate is wrong on some matter of fact an attack on that candidate? What about a matter of almost-fact (i.e. one where disagreements exist but the preponderance of the evidence is considered to be on a certain side)? This is a serious question; people disagree vehemently on this very matter. As a concrete example, can one point out that a candidate's policies will likely lead to increased atmospheric CO_2 levels? Can one point out that a candidate has not been trustworthy in the past? I think pointing out potential problems with candidates is _critical_ to democracy functioning. The _tone_ is a separate matter, of course, and I agree that the tone it's often done in is not good for democracy. I would really like to understand what you consider an "attack" vs "not an attack" and how those definitions match up with how you'd have to define them sanely for an equal-time regime. > Let me give you examples of where I live, France, to alleviate some of your fears. France is pretty bad on freedom-of-speech issues, I know; not just in this area. That doesn't mean the US should follow France's lead down that lane. > We have a council that ensures what is aired is either nonpartisan Really? And they do this while ignoring their own political biases, including unconscious ones? I am dubious, but it's possible if there is enough of a tradition of doing so that people would be embarrassed to show even implicit partisanship in this situation. > Attacks are forbidden "Attacks" defined how? > Campaign clips are of fixed length Defined how? Are Michael Moore movies considered "campaign clips"? Should they be in the US? Again, I agree that the way US elections work is far from optimal. I've just had a hard time finding things to change that would not cause more harm than good, including starting down some seriously slippery slopes to things we have consciously moved away from in the past (e.g. government control over the content of what can be aired on TV).