4 ms·
> Among other issues, it mandated extensive secrecy about disclosing their payments and had restrictions on what sort of political content the creators could pr
by tbrownaw 1y ago
> Among other issues, it mandated extensive secrecy about disclosing their payments and had restrictions on what sort of political content the creators could produce.
I think I heard about there being disclosure rules for people taking money to promote commercial things. Maybe that needs to apply to politics as well?
- IAmBroom 1y agoIt absolutely does need to happen, and never will. Subtle but effective oversight will not become a popular voting issue, and the majority of those in power will never ask to limit their own power (nor wealth).
- michaelt 1y ago> the majority of those in power will never ask to limit their own power Surprisingly, many politicians love campaign spending limits, much like tobacco companies quite like tobacco advertising bans. After all, unlimited spending means unlimited time spent begging wealthy donors for just one more $10k donation, so you can match your opponent who's outspending you. Whereas with a limit, of, say, $0.30 per voter? Both you and your opponent will reach the limit pretty quickly, allowing you both to get off the fundraising treadmill.
- ungreased0675 1y agoThat was my first thought as well. Paid endorsements should be explicit. “Brought to you by Carl’s Jr.”