3 ms·
>- PACs represent the bulk of “political” spending: it’s also unclear where you set the line there; clear attack ads are not the same as a more generic charity
by Traster 7y ago
>- PACs represent the bulk of “political” spending: it’s also unclear where you set the line there; clear attack ads are not the same as a more generic charity defending the environment and supporting a candidate; you can’t ban one without banning the other, or you have to define clear rules that allow “Vote for a candidate that supports your values” but not anything more specific, where using the same symbol, colour, font, as a specific campaign becomes a problem.
Well, they're PACs. Political Action Committees. So if you're banning political ads it would be trivial to ban organisations that are registered as a 527 organisation. That seems like a screaming flashing bright red line there.
- bertil 7y agoYou would think so but tell that to anyone advertising to say, for instance, that Greta Thunberg is right or selling t-shirts insulting Trump and they'll be outraged--claiming that this is not political but essential. More generally, you would see a lot of people unwilling to provide documentation that they are not a 527, or a foreign entity.
- vonmoltke 7y agoThat will effectively prohibit all issue-based advertising. Maybe that's a good thing, but consider the scope and impact before advocating for such a sweeping change.