Ban Political Ads

Oct.03, 2008 in Connecting, Social Media, Utterli

What if we leveled the playing field? What if we could ban all the political television, radio, newspaper, etc. advertising?

Sure, let people put bumper stickers on their cars. Let them put signs in their yards. But let’s get rid of these ads and reduce the amount of campaign fundraising necessary.

Let the candidates go grass roots. Let people see ALL the candidates, instead of those that spend outrageous amounts of money getting slanderous adverts out there.

You don’t LEARN anything at all about a candidate from their advertising. They simply get name recognition and an opportunity to slam an opponent.

I look at the very down-to-earth messages that the Libertarian candidate sends out via social media and web sites. Why not encourage these candidates to send out their editorials to the various media outlets in the form of press releases, web posts, social media engagements, etc. But ban the big dollar advertising. Take those dollars and return them to the areas that need help. What if we sent these dollars back into programs that make a difference? There are so many that need them.

Sure, let the candidates stand up in televised debates. But eliminate the debate committee as it now stands. Bring in a committee representing each party — not just the donkeys and elephants. They have essentially forced out the others from the public eye — as they obviously want to do.

Yet, the public only knows what they see. And I believe that most people don’t take the time or effort to fully explore options. Most people follow the popularity contest or simply fall into a "brand loyalty" mentality with a particular party. Regardless of what that party currently offers.

Let’s level the field and let everybody speak. Stop the states from forcing non-bipartisan candidates from reaching the ballots. Stop the terrible advertisements from reaching broadcast.

Truthfully, have you really ever learned ANYTHING substantial about a candidates view on issues from their campaign ads? All I see is mudslinging.

Mobile post sent by RichPalmer using Utterli. Replies.

Send to Facebook

Annotate this page

[Post to Twitter] Tweet This

Viewing 2 Comments

Caleb 1 month ago 1 point
Please login to rate.

Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.

I can't seem to reply over on the original thread but banning political ads is almost the most un-American thing a person could do. We need more free speech not less.

Another approach might be to regulate the prices charged for ads, at least on broadcast radio and tv, to make it more equitable or even require stations to run X number of ads for free. There are a lot of options on both this and financing that could theoretically work without limiting free speech.

However, I think this year has shown us just how much you can acheive with grassroots funding. Obama's internet fund-raising and message spreading and his ability to mobilize volunteers has really been a political game changer. There's really no reason why any of the independents couldn't do nearly as well if they had the right message and the charisma.

As for the debates, my understanding is that they limit it to people with 15% support in the polls. Which doesn't seem unreasonable to me. Otherwise what criteria would you use to keep every debate from going the way of California's Gubenatorial recall election with Porn Star Mary Cary, and a hundred other C or D list celebrities getting on the ballot just for publicity's sake?

I think now, more than ever. A really good third party candidate could use the internet to get more than 15% in the polls, get in the debates and or win. We just haven't seen a really good third party candidate come along yet. There are still more obstacles to clear for a third party candidate but look at who the front runner is now. It's not like Obama hasn't had some extra hurdles to jump. It seems to have helped him in the long run.

reply edit reblog flag record video comment

http://blacktiemartiniclub.com

richpalmer 1 month ago 1 point
Please login to rate.

Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.

Thanks, Caleb. This is a great reply and one that I certainly am glad to get. If you followed the thread of conversation over there you would also see that I replied to another comment from @attitude. It goes like this:

"@attitude
You know... you are absolutely right. I agree that we cannot and should not ban any speech. Excellent point. And, as a Libertarian, I absolutely believe that we all have rights and liberties that cannot and should not be oppressed. I appreciate that you brought to light.

So I'm a bit conflicted, eh? :D Of course, my typical response to any ad like this is to just turn it off or ignore it. That would certainly be the easiest approach to advise for most people. "You don't like it, don't pay attention to it."

My ire has been raised with the unfair approaches lately. The debate situation has not helped my attitude.

I wonder, though... is paid advertising "free" speech? That might be a topic for another thread.

Great counterpoint and certainly what I was hoping to see. Cheers!"

As far as the debates go... it is BROKEN. No, I don't agree that it is reasonable to say that the person with less than 15% in the polls shouldn't be given an opportunity to speak. One of the problems with the polls is that the BIG GOVERNMENT has led the public to only believe in bipartisan options. Most people are lemmings. They will jump off the cliff with the rest of the bunch because they don't know any better.

I don't follow a charismatic politician. I look at the views, the issues at hand, and the opportunity to change the status quo that we seem to be living. Electing a donkey or an elephant to the office will not change this system that everyone is crying about.

Look at the recent bailout issue. I don't think the people making the decisions EVER listened to what was being said by the populace. People were/ARE against his bailout, yet the effort from our big porker government is to still push it through.

We need better opportunities to level the playing field for everyone.

I agree, we should not, cannot ban speech. But perhaps there are better ways to put systems in place so that independent candidates do not get pushed under the rug.

As far as your comments about the celebs on the ballot. In my opinion, that's what we have with Obama. He's a political celebrity with little to no experience actually doing what he says needs to be done.

There is an official list of candidates for presidential election. This legal, official list should have been included in the debates. ALL of those persons should be given the voice. But the debate committee is made up of the bipartisan faction. Gee, wonder why they wouldn't want the independents there. Truthfully, these bipartisan candidates should have REQUIRED them to be in the debate if they felt that their positions are solid and that their view on the issues are sound.

As far as your comments on "a really good third party candidate". What constitutes "good?" I don't consider either the Dem or GOP candidates to be "good." So what is the baseline for the value? I don't vote for candidates; I vote for the issues that need to be addressed. And I've yet to have anyone be able to tell my HOW and WHY Obama can solve our nation's problems. Or McCain for that matter. I just hear the same regurgitated campaign slogans and rhetoric.

McCain is on a power trip and Obama has no executive experience. These are our choices? No, they're not... we have others. More people need to educate themselves instead of jumping into the popularity contest vote. High school homecoming kings and queens get these kind of votes. It appears that the U.S. citizenry is just following this example.

People should visit http://votesmart.org.

I do absolutely appreciate your feedback. We need more of this dialogue.

reply edit reblog flag record video comment

1 /people/richpalmer/ /people/richpalmer/following/ http://richpalmer.com 635047030 richpalmer richpalmer