I would impose a time matching requirement on broadcasters as an uncompensated condition of their licenses. So if The Rump wants a Stupor Bowl ad, every other candidate on the ballot gets a Stupor Bowl ad. The network can get their money back charging extra for snack chip and car insurance ads, during political season.
Put big money INTO politics, but equalize the impact of it.
Bans us? For what?
Shirley you’re joking. You are as thinskinned as peepee.
And I did say “fair or not”…
Dunno about @richardinjax, but I’m still here. Bye.
Come lately? I joined up when it was a mini Blog and they called us Primates. I was one of the first fool. I’m now in my second Inside membership.
Let me lay it out for ya!!! GO FUCK YOUR SERF VLAD! But before you do that take a look at that comment you posted and smell around for4 internal conflict. Get the fuck out asshole…you aint no paying member. You’re a letter person…
Fuck that letter person. Full; of shit.
And a new term enters the lexicon! (new to me, at least)
Wow, I… didn’t know I’d be judged by having no avatar lol. Well, I’m not going to bow to pressure now.
If you look in the mirror, you’ll see Trump. How you react to information that you don’t like and people you don’t know is exactly the same. Trump is not the problem but a symptom of people like you.
To come back to the original point, on Election Day 2016, Trump had a smaller positive rating (~36%) than he does today (mid-40s). It is thus far from certain that he is going to lose in November, and thus we are not closest we’ve ever been to campaign finance reform.
And then there is the Senate: https://www.270towin.com/2020-senate-election/the-cook-political-report
Gets my vote.
Odd, I agree.
Strange, indeed.
Hence:
Well stated.
Thanks.
Put me down on the side of it being desirable.
All the above is silliness. Your inferences above are not reliable in the least.
As for:
Well, that’s certainly a good way to never encounter anything new.
And by the same argument I am led to one point of concurrence: I do agree with you that calling for people to be “banned” is … not the way to go.
It’s an interesting question!
It’s nonsense, of course, and thanks for pointing it out.
It’s true; even if you remove the issues with money in politics, you still have to contend with Rupert Murdoch, and genuine grass-roots bigotry and misinformation. Still, the way to begin is to begin.
Since you mention it, though, a major reason the establishment were caught off-guard by Brexit is that rampant political advertising suddenly has become a force in the UK – there are (so far) no restrictions on online advertising.
It will be interesting to see whether British governments choose to do anything about that, or if they will let themselves slide towards a US-style campaign-finance trap, even knowing where that leads.
(I’m not saying British politicians aren’t open to corruption – some definitely are – but an advertising arms race doesn’t even benefit anyone. It’s just a hole to throw money into).
A valid point, but I don’t really depend on internet comment boards for new experiences. Never have, and (I hope) never will.
I did say “fair or not”…it’s become more of a mental self-defense mechanism. I just don’t have time for a lot of this bullshit.
Can we at least agree that more than a few…ah…undesirables (deplorables?) have come in with all of the new subscribers?
Whatever campaign finance reform a Democratic president and Congress put forward, depend on the Roberts Court to declare unconstitutional.
Pack the Court.
Yes, you did – and I understood what you meant about not having the time or energy to sort sincere from insincere.
It’s just that I happen to disagree: If I am not sure about which is which, I don’t call someone a “Russian troll”; I ask a question or just ignore what I don’t have time to grasp.
Enough said, I’m sure you agree!
Thanks.
Yep. Just like “water finds its own level”, money finds a way around in politics.
Even the most rigorous efforts to close loopholes will not clean it up entirely.
And let’s not overlook the media who rake in millions of dollars during election season. Expect them to use their powerful “voices” to denounce (oh so subtly) any regulations that will cut into their earnings. They will not go quietly into that dark night.
Probably a silly question but since $10 from me in a contribution magically becomes $70 in this 6 for 1 matching system… where does that matching money come from?
Admittidly I read the article rather quickly but I saw no source for the matching funds.
I’m all for the Federal Election Commission mounting a coup d’etat. I don’t know of any other country where voting for national office is a process left up to the states. Until we set uniform voting standards for federal elections, nothing will change. We now have 50 states that vote in about 47 different ways. Ludicrous.
Until we let computer algorithms set Congressional apportioning, nothing will change.
Until we have a regional primary process - no “Super Tuesdays” - nothing will change.
Until we limit the amount of money candidates/parties can spend, nothing will change.