3 ms·

That doesn't say much. It's regulated in the US too, including digital. What matters (and what is different) is what the specific regulations are.

by wdr1 9y ago

m0th87 9y ago
In practice, Citizens United obviated any US regulations on political advertising. A rich patron can pour as much money as s/he desires into advertising on behalf of a campaign, and we don't have a right to know who that person is.
- chimeracoder 9y ago
  > In practice, Citizens United obviated any US regulations on political advertising. A rich patron can pour as much money as s/he desires into advertising on behalf of a campaign, and we don't have a right to know who that person is. No, Citizens United didn't do that. That right always existed. If you're a billionaire, you always could purchase TV ads that feature (for example) you talking about how great Candidate Foo is, and why Candidate Foo will be the best thing since sliced bread. That is a fundamental right of free speech in our democracy - the government cannot restrict you from praising or criticizing a candidate. They can restrict you from coordinating with the candidate to make those statements, but they can't restrict you from your own independent speech. The Citizens United decision ruled that people preserve this right when acting as a group. So instead of one single billionaire purchasing ad spots, a group of people could pool their money and purchase the ad time instead. Or they could launch a crowdfunding campaign. All of that is still perfectly legal as long as the person (or people) running the ads aren't coordinating their efforts with the candidate and the candidate's campaign.
wonton2 9y ago
I think many places it is simply illegal with political advertisement. They use facebook groups though since that is outside the country borders, but I dont see why that would be hard to make it illegal also.

That doesn't say much. It's regulated in the US too, including digital. What matters (and what is different) is what the specific regulations are.

by wdr1 9y ago

That doesn't say much. It's regulated in the US too, including digital. What matters (and what is different) is what the specific regulations are.

m0th87 9y ago

In practice, Citizens United obviated any US regulations on political advertising. A rich patron can pour as much money as s/he desires into advertising on behalf of a campaign, and we don't have a right to know who that person is.

chimeracoder 9y ago
> In practice, Citizens United obviated any US regulations on political advertising. A rich patron can pour as much money as s/he desires into advertising on behalf of a campaign, and we don't have a right to know who that person is. No, Citizens United didn't do that. That right always existed. If you're a billionaire, you always could purchase TV ads that feature (for example) you talking about how great Candidate Foo is, and why Candidate Foo will be the best thing since sliced bread. That is a fundamental right of free speech in our democracy - the government cannot restrict you from praising or criticizing a candidate. They can restrict you from coordinating with the candidate to make those statements, but they can't restrict you from your own independent speech. The Citizens United decision ruled that people preserve this right when acting as a group. So instead of one single billionaire purchasing ad spots, a group of people could pool their money and purchase the ad time instead. Or they could launch a crowdfunding campaign. All of that is still perfectly legal as long as the person (or people) running the ads aren't coordinating their efforts with the candidate and the candidate's campaign.

wonton2 9y ago

I think many places it is simply illegal with political advertisement. They use facebook groups though since that is outside the country borders, but I dont see why that would be hard to make it illegal also.