Tony_FLADEM
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-22-10 02:51 AM
Original message |
Regarding Corporations being able to pay for political advertising |
|
Of course this was a terrible decision, but perhaps people are making it out to be worse than it actually is. Most people already have their political beliefs and are not swayed by political advertising.
Yes, it will have an impact but perhaps the gloom-and-doom has been a little overboard.
|
Occulus
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-22-10 02:56 AM
Response to Original message |
1. If that were true we wouldn't see such an upswing in political advertising during campaigns. |
|
People are swayed by ten second soundbites. The only answer is publicly funded, and only publicly funded, political campaigns.
|
Tony_FLADEM
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-22-10 03:01 AM
Response to Reply #1 |
3. They spent about 1 billion dollars in the 2008 election on advertsing. |
|
There becomes a point when it becomes redundant and people tune it out.
It's not like there is an infinite amount of advertising that can be purchased on television and radio.
|
Cessna Invesco Palin
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-22-10 02:57 AM
Response to Original message |
2. The problem with that statement... |
|
...is that in many cases elections are not about what "most people" want or believe. They're about swaying those who are undecided to one side or the other.
|
Tony_FLADEM
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-22-10 03:06 AM
Response to Reply #2 |
4. The people who are undecided base their decision on their own personal situation along |
|
with advertising. If the economy is not doing well in 2010, no amount of political advertising will help those in power.
|
FrenchieCat
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-22-10 03:10 AM
Response to Original message |
|
it is very serious, which is why there is a reaction out there and in here that belies your statement. It isn't like we are stupid and you are not. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7541592
|
Tony_FLADEM
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-22-10 03:16 AM
Response to Reply #5 |
6. I didn't say anyone was stupid. |
|
and it is a awful decision. I'm saying there are many factors that decide who wins an election not just the amount of money spent on advertising. There are examples of rich people running for office and not always being successful.
|
FrenchieCat
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-22-10 03:21 AM
Response to Reply #6 |
7. Candidates spend a lot of time raising funds...... |
|
Edited on Fri Jan-22-10 03:24 AM by FrenchieCat
there is a reason that they do.
If it is the case that one can be funded in whole by one entity for a major portion of their expenses, you've got yourself a bought and paid for candidate, period.
It's not just advertising on television and radio, it's advertising by mail, phone calls, folks knocking on your door, having your name on a NASCAR car for free, and on and on.
In essence, is one entity (that can become such an entity just for this purpose) literally able to outright own themselves some politicians.
Also corporate entities having partners that are foreign, and pretty soon, China owns our government outright.
I'm serious....Americans are known for their excesses. It can start out relatively slow, and in a few years, we won't even recognize this country's form of government.
|
TheKentuckian
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-22-10 06:05 AM
Response to Original message |
8. Its not just candidates they can dominate the airwaves on EVERY SINGLE ISSUE |
|
and use propaganda to get themselves into positions to push new laws.
The misinformation campaigns have already been quite effective and now they have a free hand. This is really horrible.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Tue Apr 23rd 2024, 01:27 AM
Response to Original message |