FCC rule would end anonymity of political ads!

[yortsed snacilbuper]

They aren't happy about it, but television broadcasters in Pittsburgh and other large media markets will soon have to put political advertising details online instead of in filing cabinets.

http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/news/politics-national/fcc-rule-would-end-anonymity-of-political-ads-634744/

[canuckledragger]

1. Watch the Koch-roaches scatter from the light!

[tclambert]

2. How deep does the identification go? Can they still use cover names for their groups?

It's easy for an oil company to bankroll a multi-million dollar "non-profit" group they call something like "American Prosperity Enterprise" that can spawn a subsidiary they call "Society for Health Information Telenetwork" or as many other shell organizations they want to hide where the money originally came from. Then they accept a few hundred $10 donations from normal citizens. The TV commercial will quietly say at the end "this ad brought to you by APE-SHIT, a grass-roots organization."

Most people won't go poking into the origins of APE-SHIT to find out exactly who the major donors are.

[canuckledragger]

3. here's an excellent resource I found the other day

for checking out backers:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=SourceWatch

Spread the word!

[brooklynite]

4. I would take it another step...

You have the right to speak out as much as you want, but YOU have to give the message in the ad: no actors, no animated charts, no dark filtered photoshopped images. Think of it as a filmed version of the newspaper op-ed.

[KharmaTrain]

6. That's Creeping Into First Ammendment Territory...

I'm all for full disclosure of those spending all the coin to pollute my television. I like to learn about corporations that either squander their money (like Papa Johns pizza) on rushpublicans so I can avoid doing any business with them or reward those that do support my prefered candidates. My hopes are the deluge of slime that is sure to hit the airwaves this fall will be so obxnious and/or offensive it will backfire on those who are spending the billions. If a person wants to throw big coin to try to alter the outcome of elections, we should have the right to know who that person is. The FCC ruling is a big step in that direction but I suspect will be held up by rushpublican members and stands no chance of passing through Congress if they get involved. Too many broadcasters are looking at those big wads of cash and the FCC won't step in their way from the motherlode.

That said...attempting to censor the message would not stand up in a court challenge. A political ad is sacrosanct...you can lie, defame your opponent...show aborted fetuses...courts have upheld the right of a candidate (and now their SuperPacs) to present whatever message they want "unfiltered" or uncensored. A broadcaster has a right to refuse political advertising but with the economy in the broadcast world still being in the doldrums the cash means far more than truth in advertising. It's the job of the campaign and its ground game to overcome the media blitz...

[annabanana]

5. Oh no!

What will Stephen Colbert say?