3 ms·

>> The problem is when candidates have to take money from special interests just in order to buy enough advertising to cause anyone to have even heard of them.

>> The problem is when candidates have to take money from special interests just in order to buy enough advertising to cause anyone to have even heard of them. Provide enough public money so that candidates don't have to do that, and then candidates won't have to do that. You forget that there is never enough money or enough advertising. All the money comes from "special interest groups" except if is provided by the government. Of course people "hear" the candidates...it's just that the candidates want a 24/7 audience, lately they have whole media corporations delivering the message for them. As we know most of the media organisations are now partisan (either by choice or by obligation). Maybe little regulation wouldn't hurt to give a chance to the little guy who can't afford to buy a media corporation?

AnthonyMouse 7y ago
> You forget that there is never enough money or enough advertising. Yes there is. That's the point. Candidates regularly defeat better-funded opponents because there is a threshold of exposure past which the voters have heard what there is to hear from both candidates and more spending has diminishing returns. > Of course people "hear" the candidates No they don't. Can you name all of the candidates running for the Democratic nomination this year? First try to off the top of your head. Now here's a list: https://www.politico.com/2020-election/president/democratic-primary/candidates/fundraising-and-campaign-finance-tracker/ https://www.politico.com/2020-election/president/democratic-... How many of the ones you missed have less than $5M right now vs. more than that? Pretty good correlation, right? Yet I doubt your preference between Sanders vs. Biden has that much to do with which of them has more money, because they both have more than the threshold amount needed to make you aware of their positions. > Maybe little regulation wouldn't hurt to give a chance to the little guy who can't afford to buy a media corporation? How is it supposed to help the little guy who can't afford to buy a media corporation to pass a law restricting the little guy from buying political advertising, meanwhile the people who can afford to buy a media corporation carry on doing so as ever?

AnthonyMouse 7y ago

> You forget that there is never enough money or enough advertising. Yes there is. That's the point. Candidates regularly defeat better-funded opponents because there is a threshold of exposure past which the voters have heard what there is to hear from both candidates and more spending has diminishing returns. > Of course people "hear" the candidates No they don't. Can you name all of the candidates running for the Democratic nomination this year? First try to off the top of your head. Now here's a list: https://www.politico.com/2020-election/president/democratic-primary/candidates/fundraising-and-campaign-finance-tracker/ https://www.politico.com/2020-election/president/democratic-... How many of the ones you missed have less than $5M right now vs. more than that? Pretty good correlation, right? Yet I doubt your preference between Sanders vs. Biden has that much to do with which of them has more money, because they both have more than the threshold amount needed to make you aware of their positions. > Maybe little regulation wouldn't hurt to give a chance to the little guy who can't afford to buy a media corporation? How is it supposed to help the little guy who can't afford to buy a media corporation to pass a law restricting the little guy from buying political advertising, meanwhile the people who can afford to buy a media corporation carry on doing so as ever?