soapboxtalk
(55 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Nov-14-11 12:03 AM
Original message |
|
This would be an simple and quick way to drain the swamp of politics.
It's the number one expenditure in political campaigns, and it's the number one reason why money controls the whole process.
It's also proven that the most effective ads are the attack ads, the distortion ads, and the most dishonest.
Can we get behind this? Everyone dislikes these ads, they're annoying and no one besides the ones selling the commercials will object.
I'm Soapbox, and I approve this message.
|
| frazzled
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Nov-14-11 12:05 AM
Response to Original message |
| 1. And how about getting them off this site, too? |
|
Now that we'll have to pay a monthly fee or be swamped with them, it's even more insidious than the TV ads. We at least all have remotes to channel-switch or mute when the ads come on our televisions.
|
| WCGreen
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Nov-14-11 12:07 AM
Response to Original message |
| 2. It use to be that you could only run them for I think a month before the |
|
election...
Now there are all sorts of advocacy commercials on all the time, 365 days a year.
|
| soapboxtalk
(55 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Nov-14-11 12:13 AM
Response to Reply #2 |
|
I didn't know there used to be a rule...who makes these rules?
I'm guessing the FCC
Maybe we should start logging complaints into the FCC every time we're annoyed by one of these ads...would they act then?
|
| WCGreen
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Nov-14-11 01:11 AM
Response to Reply #3 |
| 5. That was a long time ago.... |
| Nye Bevan
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Nov-14-11 12:52 AM
Response to Original message |
| 4. The UK does that, but we can't, because of the First Amendment (nt) |
| Initech
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Nov-14-11 01:20 AM
Response to Reply #4 |
| 7. And thanks to our psychotic, right wing SCOTUS, money is free speech. |
| Initech
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Nov-14-11 01:20 AM
Response to Original message |
| 6. No, we need to overturn Citizen's United. Period. End of story. |
| soapboxtalk
(55 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Nov-14-11 08:30 AM
Response to Reply #6 |
|
Citizens united, what does that mean?
|
| soapboxtalk
(55 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Nov-14-11 08:30 AM
Response to Reply #6 |
|
Citizens united, what does that mean?
|
| Initech
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Nov-14-11 01:13 PM
Response to Reply #9 |
| 10. Citizen's United was the Supreme Court decision... |
|
That said that corporations have the same free speech rights as the rest of us, and as such they are free to spend unlimited amounts of money on campaigns. You can see it in effect now with the Koch Bros., Scott Walker (WI) and Herman Cain.
|
| soapboxtalk
(55 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Nov-15-11 01:42 AM
Response to Reply #10 |
|
That was a nice switcheroo then, wasn't it?
They give corporations unlimited donations in the name of free speech, and then greatly limit the amount a private citizen can give.
Are they that clever or are we just asleep?
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts)     |
Fri Apr 26th 2024, 12:04 AM
Response to Original message |
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
