3 ms·
> This is about paying for reach. And paying to increase the reach of political speech has significant ramifications that today’s democratic infrastructure may
by tomp 7y ago
> This is about paying for reach. And paying to increase the reach of political speech has significant ramifications that today’s democratic infrastructure may not be prepared to handle
Let's just keep in mind that Trump spent way less on the election in total than Clinton did.
- mrtksn 7y agoWhy do we keep that in mind?
- tomp 7y agoControversy is addictive. By forbidding spending money to get reach, the ones with most reach will be those who are the most controversial.
- munk-a 7y agoCertainly with how media organizations are currently oriented and the assumption that those organizations will continue to be able to advertise or opine on candidates. But there is no definite reason that news network needs to be chasing stories 24/7 as they are now, that's a relatively new trend.
- mrtksn 7y agoSounds fine to me. You hold a popularity contest for the top job, the most popular person gets elected in a transparent fashion. It's very different than opaquely targeting individuals because you know what is going on and if you disagree you can do your own thing to win support.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]