Greg_W Posted September 9, 2004 Posted September 9, 2004 I always thought that McKain-Feingold was bullshit, but that's my opinion. With all these "527" ads cropping up funded by various offshoots of the major lobbying players, is the CFRA working? Groups have found ways around it, more money is being spent checking and re-checking disclosure statements, etc. It seems like it's just made free political speech more expensive. I don't see how it's stopped the supposed corruption or "financial influence" it was purported to correct. Any thoughts? Quote
foraker Posted September 9, 2004 Posted September 9, 2004 Yes, ban political ads. :-) Make people get off their fat keisters and learn something without having it spoonfed to them. Quote
graupel Posted September 9, 2004 Posted September 9, 2004 If they couldn't place ads on TV, there would be much less need for all the fundraising and behind closed door handshaking to develop their huge campaign war chests. Seems like many of the problems in politics would be curtailed just by eliminating advertising. Quote
foraker Posted September 9, 2004 Posted September 9, 2004 just try to get a law about that enacted given the amount of money the networks make from advertising.... Quote
Greg_W Posted September 9, 2004 Author Posted September 9, 2004 Seems like many of the problems in politics would be curtailed just by eliminating advertising. Â Examples, please. I'm for unfettered fundraising and full disclosure. Why not? It seems like there's more of a furor now. How else to voter groups get their messages out other than advertising? The CFRA didn't impact the politicians as much as it impacted voter groups who endorse certain candidates; groups like the Sierra Club, AARP, NRA, UAW, etc. Why shouldn't these groups be able to buy advertising time to put their endorsements out there on behalf of the people they represent? Quote
cj001f Posted September 9, 2004 Posted September 9, 2004 Examples, please. I'm for unfettered fundraising and full disclosure. Why not? It seems like there's more of a furor now. How else to voter groups get their messages out other than advertising? "Full Disclosure" is merely another loophole for groups to slip through. As an example I give Dave's company $1 million on the condition he use it to buy advertising in the Presidential Campaign. Since it's now Dave's money, he's disclosed as the purchaser. Not exactly right to my mind. Quote
rbw1966 Posted September 10, 2004 Posted September 10, 2004 I think the govt should require the networks provide equal, free access to political campaign message spots for each candidate allowed on the ballot. Quote
cj001f Posted September 10, 2004 Posted September 10, 2004 I think the govt should require the networks provide equal, free access to political campaign message spots for each candidate allowed on the ballot. They do (at least on PBS) It caused quite a stink last election - people didn't like adds interrupting Morning Edition Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.