3 ms·
This thread has gone on for a while I'm not going to keep arguing point by point, but you misunderstand election law. Between Watergate and 2010 it was hard to
by jim-greer 12y ago
This thread has gone on for a while I'm not going to keep arguing point by point, but you misunderstand election law. Between Watergate and 2010 it was hard to do anonymous electioneering, for any person or organization.
I think unlimited anonymous election spending is more of a problem than the possibility that a big donor might get bad press or be shunned by potential employers. You disagree. That's fine, let's get on with our lives and stop trying to convince each other, which obviously isn't going to happen.
- gaadd33 12y agoJust a question, prior to Watergate, would it have been possible for someone to buy up hours of TV ads nationwide attacking the opponent of the person they want to win? I don't know anything about election law, so I'm wondering if something changed or if attack ads and massive spending just became more accepted.
- smsm42 12y agoI'm not sure about TV ads specifically (TV ads probably were much less important in the 60s than now) but there's absolutely no reason to prevent somebody from speaking against any political candidate. If the First Amendment protects anything, it would definitely protect that.
- specialist 12y agoReagan abolished the Fairness Doctrine. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine