5 ms·

> Why doesn't google/fb (other than money) just ban ads from non-political campaigns.. i.e. Pacs, etc.. if you're Bernie Sanders you can run an ad, if you're a

> Why doesn't google/fb (other than money) just ban ads from non-political campaigns.. i.e. Pacs, etc.. if you're Bernie Sanders you can run an ad, if you're a super pac or political agency you cannot run campaigns for a politician, only the verified politician and designated politician workers can access adwords/fb ads for that campaign. Why doesn't google/fb (other than money) just ban ads from non-political campaigns.. i.e. Pacs, etc.. if you're Bernie Sanders you can run an ad, if you're a super pac or political agency you cannot run campaigns for a politician, only the verified politician and designated politician workers can access adwords/fb ads for that campaign. This would essentially help make citizens united null/void at least so far as social media/search engine ad buys are considered... So if you're a billionaire, you can run an ad campaign for yourself (either as a candidate or to promote issues you care about), but several thousand citizens can't come together to crowdfund an ad campaign to talk about the same thing? That is, in effect, what you are saying.

gremlinsinc 8y ago
Where do you think pac's get most their money? From corporations, billionaires, special interests..you think small donor's donate to most pacs? I think special interests and corporations and billionaires should NOT be allowed to run ads AT all, unless they're personally running for office themselves. Candidates should be able to take donations but only from real citizens, and only up to a certain limit. Ideally, politicians would have a limit on how much they can spend on ads per quarter, to make it more 'fair' for everyone running, or hell give everyone equal budgets. They can then take personal small donations from masses to build up their campaign coffers but cannot accept donations from lobbyists, corporations, etc... This would ensure more even-ness and that the person who wins will win because of their message/support instead of having more money to throw at it.
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago
  > special interests and corporations and billionaires should NOT be allowed to run ads AT all, unless they're personally running for office themselves So out with the Sierra Club, Planned Parenthood and every other advocacy group? There is a reason we have the First Amendment.
  - gremlinsinc 8y ago
    They can still exist and advertise their causes, they just can't run positive/negative ads towards a political campaign. My goal w/ this idea is more for campaign purity rather than 'silencing' voices. run ads about climate change all you want, just don't mention any politician by name in a positive or negative light... Only that campaign/politician can mention themselves and/or their opponent - though part of me would like negative opponent-based ads done away with too..I hate those.. but w/e...that's probably too much to ask for. I'd like to see a time come when the only ads you see for a poltician are the ones that end w/ 'My name is ___ and I approve this message' and the ONLY person they talk about is themselves and/or their family and people they work with in a positive light. Instead of degrading their opponent. Some of Bernie's ads were perfect examples -- his America ad was amazing and just awesome and it didn't degrade Clinton or attack her, it instead elicited strong emotions of hope.
    - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
      > run ads about climate change all you want, just don't mention any politician by name France has a similar system. Tight restrictions on mentioning a party or candidate within a certain window before an election. We'd have trouble with that in America, though, because of the First Amendment. It would also shift power to those who can go on TV, attract attention to their blogs and otherwise organically inculcate attention through the press. > the ONLY person they talk about is themselves and/or their family and people they work with in a positive light. Instead of degrading their opponent Sometimes opponents need to be called out on their shit. In any case, I become immediately uncomfortable with restricting pure political speech in this manner.
- chimeracoder 8y ago
  > Candidates should be able to take donations but only from real citizens, and only up to a certain limit. This is already the case in the US. Candidates can only take donations that are tied to individuals, and up to a specified limit per donor. And those lists (along with their employers) are all publicly disclosed, to ensure that companies cannot funnel donations illegally through their employees. (Incidentally, that's not true in many European countries, where corporations are allowed to donate directly without having to tie that money to an individual). > Where do you think pac's get most their money? From corporations, billionaires, special interests..you think small donor's donate to most pacs? There are a whole lot of PACs that are focused on specific issues relevant to particular demographics. For these groups, this is literally the only way for them to launch coordinated and organized campaigns to advocate for themselves, because none of their members is independently wealthy enough to fund it directly. Oftentimes, they're speaking up about issues that don't have the support of any elected official in the first place, and publicizing their message is the important first step towards building up the public pressure to get some elected officials on their side in the first place. If you take that away from them, you're basically saying that they should have no right to speak out about the issues that affect them, but their well-funded, well-organized corporate opponents, billionaire self-funded candidates, and wealthy incumbent politicians all can.
  - gremlinsinc 8y ago
    the ban would only be so far as they support or advocate against a political campaign running for office...all other ads are game.
- CamperBob2 8y ago
  My goodness, you certainly have a long list of people and organizations who shouldn’t be allowed to speak there. Can I be on it too?
usepgp 8y ago
Several thousand citizens can donate to a political campaign, which spends their money, rather than a PAC.
- chimeracoder 8y ago
  > Several thousand citizens can donate to a political campaign, which spends their money, rather than a PAC. Only if there's a political campaign that represents the issues they care about in the first place. Oftentimes that's not the case. And even then, there's no guarantee that the campaign would use that money specifically to promote the issues that they care about.

gremlinsinc 8y ago

Where do you think pac's get most their money? From corporations, billionaires, special interests..you think small donor's donate to most pacs? I think special interests and corporations and billionaires should NOT be allowed to run ads AT all, unless they're personally running for office themselves. Candidates should be able to take donations but only from real citizens, and only up to a certain limit. Ideally, politicians would have a limit on how much they can spend on ads per quarter, to make it more 'fair' for everyone running, or hell give everyone equal budgets. They can then take personal small donations from masses to build up their campaign coffers but cannot accept donations from lobbyists, corporations, etc... This would ensure more even-ness and that the person who wins will win because of their message/support instead of having more money to throw at it.

JumpCrisscross 8y ago
> special interests and corporations and billionaires should NOT be allowed to run ads AT all, unless they're personally running for office themselves So out with the Sierra Club, Planned Parenthood and every other advocacy group? There is a reason we have the First Amendment.
- gremlinsinc 8y ago
  They can still exist and advertise their causes, they just can't run positive/negative ads towards a political campaign. My goal w/ this idea is more for campaign purity rather than 'silencing' voices. run ads about climate change all you want, just don't mention any politician by name in a positive or negative light... Only that campaign/politician can mention themselves and/or their opponent - though part of me would like negative opponent-based ads done away with too..I hate those.. but w/e...that's probably too much to ask for. I'd like to see a time come when the only ads you see for a poltician are the ones that end w/ 'My name is ___ and I approve this message' and the ONLY person they talk about is themselves and/or their family and people they work with in a positive light. Instead of degrading their opponent. Some of Bernie's ads were perfect examples -- his America ad was amazing and just awesome and it didn't degrade Clinton or attack her, it instead elicited strong emotions of hope.
  - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
    > run ads about climate change all you want, just don't mention any politician by name France has a similar system. Tight restrictions on mentioning a party or candidate within a certain window before an election. We'd have trouble with that in America, though, because of the First Amendment. It would also shift power to those who can go on TV, attract attention to their blogs and otherwise organically inculcate attention through the press. > the ONLY person they talk about is themselves and/or their family and people they work with in a positive light. Instead of degrading their opponent Sometimes opponents need to be called out on their shit. In any case, I become immediately uncomfortable with restricting pure political speech in this manner.
chimeracoder 8y ago
> Candidates should be able to take donations but only from real citizens, and only up to a certain limit. This is already the case in the US. Candidates can only take donations that are tied to individuals, and up to a specified limit per donor. And those lists (along with their employers) are all publicly disclosed, to ensure that companies cannot funnel donations illegally through their employees. (Incidentally, that's not true in many European countries, where corporations are allowed to donate directly without having to tie that money to an individual). > Where do you think pac's get most their money? From corporations, billionaires, special interests..you think small donor's donate to most pacs? There are a whole lot of PACs that are focused on specific issues relevant to particular demographics. For these groups, this is literally the only way for them to launch coordinated and organized campaigns to advocate for themselves, because none of their members is independently wealthy enough to fund it directly. Oftentimes, they're speaking up about issues that don't have the support of any elected official in the first place, and publicizing their message is the important first step towards building up the public pressure to get some elected officials on their side in the first place. If you take that away from them, you're basically saying that they should have no right to speak out about the issues that affect them, but their well-funded, well-organized corporate opponents, billionaire self-funded candidates, and wealthy incumbent politicians all can.
- gremlinsinc 8y ago
  the ban would only be so far as they support or advocate against a political campaign running for office...all other ads are game.
CamperBob2 8y ago
My goodness, you certainly have a long list of people and organizations who shouldn’t be allowed to speak there. Can I be on it too?

usepgp 8y ago

Several thousand citizens can donate to a political campaign, which spends their money, rather than a PAC.

chimeracoder 8y ago
> Several thousand citizens can donate to a political campaign, which spends their money, rather than a PAC. Only if there's a political campaign that represents the issues they care about in the first place. Oftentimes that's not the case. And even then, there's no guarantee that the campaign would use that money specifically to promote the issues that they care about.