Let's make political ads illegal....

[LynzM]

The only way politicians get air time is if they debate, or participate in publicly-broadcast round-table dicussions. Take the money right out of the equation. I believe something similar to this is in effect in Germany... any german DUers want to confirm for me?

I would love to see that happen...

[bemildred]

1. Either that or make them free.

(We own the airwaves, right?)

[qazplm]

2. wouldnt work

the president would get on the air with his weekly address or press conferences for free, early and often, while a challenger would get on not nearly as much.

You need advertising to counteract the advantages of incumbency.

[LoZoccolo]

3. I think you're on to something here.

Like they could only make claims if the other candidate was there. Of course to be fair you'd have to include all the third-party ones, and that might be the Achille's heel - getting them all in the same room at once.

[bemildred]

4. I just figured if you have enough signatures,

you have air time, good air time, prime time,
number of signatures depends on the race, air time
divided equally,

[On the Road]

5. It's Definitely a Possibility

The first amendment does not mean unlimited access to the public airwaves, regardless of whether they're paid for.

Publicly funded elections are definitely a democratic ideal. How to write the rules so it's not abused is the trick.

[Shopaholic]

6. Great--we'd finally be able to ban Faux News--

because they're just one giant continuous campaign ad for the Repugs

[FeebMaster]

7. What does the first amendment mean? (nt)

[bemildred]

8. Here:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging
the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people
peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress
of grievances.

Those words were chosen carefully, what do they mean in plain
English? Having to pay for airtime IS a restraint of free speech,
it means only people with lots of money can "speak".

[LynzM]

9. Also, 'peaceably to assemble'

Is hugely under attack and/or prohibited recently... which is pretty scary in and of itself :(

[bemildred]

10. They piss all over the Constitution all the time.

That's one of my major burns.
None of the provisions of that document contain a
trailing clause to the effect "except in wartime or
when the President is upset", and yet the courts
have repeatedly denied the plain English meaning
of the words, and we the people let them get away
with it.

[bhenries]

12. Buckley v. Valeo

You simply could never pass a law like that.

[bhenries]

11. You can't

That would violate the First Amendment, no question.

[bemildred]

13. Nah, the first amendment says nothing about that.

See above.
You just need a Supreme Court with some integrity.

[bhenries]

14. The constitution

is a living, breathing, document. But, the principles of free speech are, very, very well-settled. You could never pass a law like that. It is "overbroad" -- and even the "New Deal Court" would strike it down.

[bemildred]

15. "We the people" can do whatever we want.

The supreme court are one and all employees.

[bhenries]

16. That is very cynical

and also incorrect. The constitution was specifically designed to make it as difficult as possible to alter the status quo. And you can't mess with the Supreme Court either to get your way. Roosevelt tried it and received a harsh rebuke -- even though he had HUGE majorities in Congress.

[bemildred]

18. Democratic rule is cynical?

I'm not talking about altering the USSC, I'm talking
about getting the best possible judges, not political
hacks.

[On the Road]

22. It's Difficult to Change the Constitution

but I think this discussion is based on how we think the Constitution SHOULD be interpreted rather than just how it HAS been interpreted.

Anyone is free to speak. That does not mean that anyone is free to purchase the right to broadcast that speech over a medium which costs far more than the average citizen can afford.

The logical result of applying free speech to purchasing broadcast TV ads is corporate democracy: having all the money mean having all the speech. No money equals no speech.

Money buys votes, not individually, but in the aggregate. That is not the democratic ideal of free political speech.

[bhenries]

23. Because

it is "expression."

The solution to problems is not to put controls in place to achieve an outcome that you like. Outlawing what you don't like doesn't solve the problem -- it creates more problems.

On the otherhand, creating unlimited access would level the field.

But, as MoveOn and Voter Fund have demonstrated, where there is a will, there is a way.

[bemildred]

24. You cannot have unlimited access to a limited resource.

Broadcast bandwidth certainly is limited, the FCC gets
quite worked up about it.

It is worth noting, as you have, that this problem does
not arise on the internet, at least as a matter of access.
The same may be said for print, it's quite cheap and easy
to print whatever you want.

Once one has limits, it is legitimate to discuss "fair" access
rules, and "only what you can afford" can certainly be questioned
in that regard.

I will agree that the notion of "no political ads except thus and
so" will not hold up.

[bhenries]

25. Well

at least we agree on something

:pals:

[bemildred]

26. My pleasure.

:toast:

[bhenries]

27. Cute

I love these icons

:loveya:

[bemildred]

28. Indeed.

:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

[bemildred]

17. Let me put it this way Sir,

If we can seriously contemplate amendments to the
Constitution to "outlaw gay marriage" and "outlaw
flag burning" then we can damn well specify how we
want our airwaves run and how we want our elections
to be carried out; but it does not appear to me that
that should be necessary.

[jsanteramo]

19. An intepretation that is too broad will be struck down

You are right...I do remember learning that! You cannot interpret the first amendment to mean anything you want-look to the intent of the framers!

[drfemoe]

31. the principles of free speech are, very, very well-settled

Are you sure about that?

Heard of "free-speech zones"?

Heard of denial of permits for peaceful assembly?

Heard of the Patriot Act?

ETC.

I would say the principles are being challenged on a daily basis due to the nature of our current would be rulers.

[TroubleMan]

20. Any kind of law like that would backfire against you

You should never try to quiet any political discourse, even if you disagree with the message.

(on edit) think of what they did to W.E.B. DuBois

[bhenries]

21. Correct

As Brandeis said, the best way to fight speech you don't like is with MORE speech.

[muriel_volestrangler]

29. Not Germany, but in the UK

TV (and, I think, radio) political ads are banned. What the politicans get instead are 'party political broadcasts' - scheduled 5 minute slots on both the BBC and commercial channels, where they get to say whatever they want (as long as it fits the decency, inciting hatred etc. laws that apply to normal TV - eg an anti-abortion party wasn't allowed to show an aborted foetus at the last election). They get a few slots a year normally (eg one for each main party when the government budget for the year is presented) and then several when leading up to an election, I think in proportion to the number of votes they're expected to get.

One big advantage of this is that you know when these usually mindnumbingly tedious litanies of half-truths and distortions are going to come on, so you can have a cup of tea instead, or watch paint dry, or something.

[Kellanved]

30. No, in Germany it is pretty much like in the US

The money is the key. However (even private) broadcaster have to air political spots - a political party willing to pay may not be refused the slot.