I've taken a liking to the term "the New York Times rule" - write and act as if your message, statement, or a detailed account of your actions could be publishe

I've taken a liking to the term "the New York Times rule" - write and act as if your message, statement, or a detailed account of your actions could be published at any time on the front page of the New York Times: https://businessethicsblog.com/2010/12/08/business-ethics-and-the-new-york-times-rule/ https://businessethicsblog.com/2010/12/08/business-ethics-an... . The most concerning political advertising thrives in the shadows: it whispers messages to audiences that are false (easier to counter in the light of day) or prejudiced (and thus should have consequences to whatever groups post them). Radical transparency during campaigns may not stop these types of things, but at the very least it enables a response. That said, it's worth thinking deeply about the arms race that might ensue - when every PAC can see every advertisement every other PAC is investing in, does that make the race into even more of a "whoever has the most money wins" situation even more than the post-Citizens United dystopia we find ourselves in now?