Supreme Court rule in FAVOR of unlimite political ads from private industry
- Status
Try playing music loud in the middle of the night, see how much the 1st amendment helps you...
Try playing music loud in the middle of the night, see how much the 1st amendment helps you...[/QUOTE]
I can play music at middle of the night with no problem. Are you implying that political ads cause other people harm?
GasBandit
Staff member
Try playing music loud in the middle of the night, see how much the 1st amendment helps you...[/QUOTE]
That's a bad analogy. You have the option to not watch TV. You can't use the remote to mute the upstairs apartment.
http://www.gregpalast.com/supreme-court-to-ok-al-qaeda-donation-for-sarah-palin/
This guy is more than a little shrill with the terrorism angle, but actually makes an excellent point: corporations make/receive money from international, as well as national, groups. Many international companies incorporate at least a local branch in the US. These groups are now able to buy political ads at will and be satisfied labeling the ads as paid for by Innocuous American Corp. PACs had to file individual names of donors, but Corps don't.
This is actually really, really bad. I know that the same money was crossing the ocean already, but at least it was more difficult to buy a voice before.
This guy is more than a little shrill with the terrorism angle, but actually makes an excellent point: corporations make/receive money from international, as well as national, groups. Many international companies incorporate at least a local branch in the US. These groups are now able to buy political ads at will and be satisfied labeling the ads as paid for by Innocuous American Corp. PACs had to file individual names of donors, but Corps don't.
This is actually really, really bad. I know that the same money was crossing the ocean already, but at least it was more difficult to buy a voice before.
GasBandit
Staff member
This is really a no-win issue though... as things stood, union bosses could run political ads whenever they wanted, so it's not like the system was fine before yesterday. But to throw open the floodgates while still requiring broadcasters to go "all or nothing and at the lowest rate they've ever brokered" isn't helping anything. It neither makes things "fair" by any sense of the word, nor does it actually protect any freedoms, least of all those of the broadcaster. They could also remove the enforced low rates and forced sale laws, which would make my employers really happy because then they could charge normal rates for political advertising and have the option to decline or cut political ads in oversold situations.... or they could just pass a law that says "no broadcast political ads, evar, full stop."
Wouldn't it be interesting if the only TV/radio time candidates got was their appearances on debates.
Wouldn't it be interesting if the only TV/radio time candidates got was their appearances on debates.
Wait, broadcasters can't use pre-emptable IOs with political advertisers at all? That's worse than I thought. What little political advertising I was involved in was online only, which has somewhat different rules....
A
Alex B.
Just out of curiosity, what does "lowest rate they've ever brokered" mean? Does that mean if a candidate can prove ABC sold an ad for two dollars back in 1948 they can get an ad for two dollars now? Crazy!
On the other, I'm looking forward to visiting the Nokia Congressional Complex in DC in a few years to view the Time Warner-Disney Constitution.
GasBandit
Staff member
Wait, broadcasters can't use pre-emptable IOs with political advertisers at all? That's worse than I thought. What little political advertising I was involved in was online only, which has somewhat different rules....[/QUOTE]
Well, I can't speak authoritatively for TV, but the rule is in radio you have to "declare" each year whether or not you will air political advertisements.. once you've declared, you MUST run ANY political advertising brought to you, and if you get oversold you have to bump other (higher paying) clients off to make room for the politicals.
Just out of curiosity, what does "lowest rate they've ever brokered" mean? Does that mean if a candidate can prove ABC sold an ad for two dollars back in 1948 they can get an ad for two dollars now? Crazy!
On the other, I'm looking forward to visiting the Nokia Congressional Complex in DC in a few years to view the Time Warner-Disney Constitution.[/QUOTE]
Almost, but not quite. The window for lowest rate only goes back a couple months. However, that often becomes an Ouroboros when things like special and local elections happen outside of normal times. Even when that isn't the case, it's bad enough because political advertising often starts WAY ahead of the political season. We've been running political advertising here for weeks already, because we've got a 5-way republican primary coming up. So our window stretched back into last year's judicial elections... which had a window that stretched back to this one time we gave somebody a deal for 5 bucks a spot...
I know this because I am the one who had to show the commercial traffic director and our general manager how to run the reports that pull this data. Ironically, this means our highest rated station is having to run political advertising for 5 bucks a spot, whereas our second-lowest rated station can charge 15 bucks (a more normal spot rate on our top station is closer to 40 bucks).
Oh, and if anybody on the air at one of your stations decides to run for office, if you keep him on the air, you have to give any of his opponents FREE time on the air equal to that of your employee... or I guess, you could just take him off the air. Even if he doesn't talk politics while on the air.
---------- Post added at 02:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:05 PM ----------
For more information, see this guide.
Yes, yes it would.
C
Chibibar
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100122/ap_on_bi_ge/us_campaign_finance_ceos
Business sent a letter to congress to STOP asking for money
interesting read.
Business sent a letter to congress to STOP asking for money
interesting read.
K
Kitty Sinatra
Isn't it possible that these third party political ads won't be treated the same as political ads paid for by a candidate's campaign?
Yeah, basically they can say anything and only the companies are held culpable since they don't really have ties to a campaign. Scary stuff.
K
Kitty Sinatra
I meant regarding Gas's concern about radio and TV having to run them and what they have to charge.
I should've quoted something to make that more clear.
I should've quoted something to make that more clear.
Try playing music loud in the middle of the night, see how much the 1st amendment helps you...[/QUOTE]
That's a bad analogy. You have the option to not watch TV. You can't use the remote to mute the upstairs apartment.[/QUOTE]
I wasn't making an analogy, i was pointing out that there are situations when a medium through which people can say things can be policed...
GasBandit
Staff member
Try playing music loud in the middle of the night, see how much the 1st amendment helps you...[/QUOTE]
That's a bad analogy. You have the option to not watch TV. You can't use the remote to mute the upstairs apartment.[/QUOTE]
I wasn't making an analogy, i was pointing out that there are situations when a medium through which people can say things can be policed...[/QUOTE]
My point was, there's a difference between putting stuff on TV and committing a noise violation... putting something on TV doesn't force anyone to watch it, they always have the option to tune out. Just as your right to swing your fist ends where someone else's nose begins, the first amendment doesn't allow you to infringe on the rights of others. The TV, however, has hundreds of channels, and even an OFF button.
Dave
Staff member
In this case, though, the big businesses will be able to purchase all or nearly all of the spaces available as they have deeper pockets. The more grass roots groups or smaller interests are going to get screwed. And that's the problem with this decision. Now the businesses can openly buy the elections and there's nothing we can do about it.
As to your assertion that people can just "turn stuff off" you know as well as I do that that is bullshit and advertising works. So much money was spent by interests talking crap about the health care overhaul that they turned public opinion against the very idea - even though what they were espousing was complete fabrications and falsehoods simply to poison the well. In this case big business watered the bill down so much that it's no longer health care reform but is instead a handout to the very people that this was supposed to protect us from!
Thanks, Bush. Your continuing legacy is to further undermine democracy and push as much wealth into the pockets of your rich buddies. Well done, fucker.
As to your assertion that people can just "turn stuff off" you know as well as I do that that is bullshit and advertising works. So much money was spent by interests talking crap about the health care overhaul that they turned public opinion against the very idea - even though what they were espousing was complete fabrications and falsehoods simply to poison the well. In this case big business watered the bill down so much that it's no longer health care reform but is instead a handout to the very people that this was supposed to protect us from!
Thanks, Bush. Your continuing legacy is to further undermine democracy and push as much wealth into the pockets of your rich buddies. Well done, fucker.
GasBandit
Staff member
The first amendment has nothing to do with how true something is or how stupid people are.
Gallup polls show that the people agree with the Supreme Court decision ... people apparently believe campaign money is "free speech." Oi, I'm not looking forward to this.
Dave
Staff member
The first amendment has nothing to do with how true something is or how stupid people are.[/QUOTE]
The law was put into affect almost a hundred years ago because back then they gave a shit about the freedoms and needs of the people. Freedom of speech is NOT about a business being able to say anything they want. Businesses are not allowed this freedom because the power they bring is not at the same level of an individual. An individual making a statement is protected because they are stating something THEY believe in. A business has shareholders that may or may not share the views expressed. Thus, when a business using publicly traded funds to push a specific agenda politically it has the potential to disenfranchise a set of views that is blocked from being expressed.
This is why the ruling is incorrect and dangerous. It sets aside century-old protections on the populace and hands elections to big business.
I wonder what party feels they will profit the most from this? Hmmm. I wonder?
Dave, you seem to be implying that the framers of the constitution put protections in place against big businesses. While there were sizable businesses at the time, they were nothing like what we have today. I think part of the reason this ruling went through was because of the disconnect between then and now.
Yeah, it was the "centuries old protections" part that I tripped up on, I guess.
GasBandit
Staff member
The first amendment has nothing to do with how true something is or how stupid people are.[/QUOTE]
The law was put into affect almost a hundred years ago because back then they gave a shit about the freedoms and needs of the people. Freedom of speech is NOT about a business being able to say anything they want. Businesses are not allowed this freedom because the power they bring is not at the same level of an individual. An individual making a statement is protected because they are stating something THEY believe in. A business has shareholders that may or may not share the views expressed. Thus, when a business using publicly traded funds to push a specific agenda politically it has the potential to disenfranchise a set of views that is blocked from being expressed.
This is why the ruling is incorrect and dangerous. It sets aside century-old protections on the populace and hands elections to big business.[/QUOTE] Am I correct then, in assuming that you also believe that Unions should also not be able to do this?
GasBandit
Staff member
See, I could get behind that. As you said, they're not an individual, they're a theoretical construct.
Of course, I don't think you'd be happy if it was just limited to private individual funds, either... after all, which party has the people in it who are rich enough to be able to afford issue advocacy advertising out of their own pocket? Still, it'd be a step in the right direction.
Dave
Staff member
See, I could get behind that. As you said, they're not an individual, they're a theoretical construct.
Of course, I don't think you'd be happy if it was just limited to private individual funds, either... after all, which party has the people in it who are rich enough to be able to afford issue advocacy advertising out of their own pocket? Still, it'd be a step in the right direction.[/QUOTE]
If Warren Buffet wants to back someone and spend his own money more power to him. I disagree with PACs spreading lies and these "advocacy" groups who out and out do not tell the truth should be brought up on charges of defamation, etc. This ruling by the courts is a monstrosity and an epidemic of businesses using our government to line their pockets while stepping on the taxpayers to do so.
C
Chibibar
The first amendment has nothing to do with how true something is or how stupid people are.[/QUOTE]
The law was put into affect almost a hundred years ago because back then they gave a shit about the freedoms and needs of the people. Freedom of speech is NOT about a business being able to say anything they want. Businesses are not allowed this freedom because the power they bring is not at the same level of an individual. An individual making a statement is protected because they are stating something THEY believe in. A business has shareholders that may or may not share the views expressed. Thus, when a business using publicly traded funds to push a specific agenda politically it has the potential to disenfranchise a set of views that is blocked from being expressed.
This is why the ruling is incorrect and dangerous. It sets aside century-old protections on the populace and hands elections to big business.
I wonder what party feels they will profit the most from this? Hmmm. I wonder?[/QUOTE]
I have to agree with Dave. The problem will arise when the small potato or upcoming politician against a "veteran" politician in office. Who do you think is going to get more "free airtime*" on TV when it comes to campaign? it would be the person with more "connections" with the private business with deep pockets.
*free airtime = I mean the business will pay for it and just slap the quick quib on "This ad is provided by Intel sponsoring Congressman Woodchuck (made up name)" now since the Supreme court said there is no limit, then lets say future congressman sandy will really need to get some corporate sponsor to get some "face time" on TV.
Ads DO work, why else it is a multi-billion dollar industry? Why does ads during peak hour cost so much (I only remember that prime time and super bowl time slots are EXPENSIVE since they are in high demand)
Try playing music loud in the middle of the night, see how much the 1st amendment helps you...[/QUOTE]
That's a bad analogy. You have the option to not watch TV. You can't use the remote to mute the upstairs apartment.[/QUOTE]
I wasn't making an analogy, i was pointing out that there are situations when a medium through which people can say things can be policed...[/QUOTE]
My point was, there's a difference between putting stuff on TV and committing a noise violation... putting something on TV doesn't force anyone to watch it, they always have the option to tune out. Just as your right to swing your fist ends where someone else's nose begins, the first amendment doesn't allow you to infringe on the rights of others. The TV, however, has hundreds of channels, and even an OFF button.[/QUOTE]
And that's why it's not an analogy... because they're different things, so the motivation for banning them would be different too.
Super Bowl ads are actually kind of contentious. They sell well because they have such a huge built-in audience, but they're also incredibly difficult to measure the return on because most people don't stop watching the Super Bowl to go buy a domain on GoDaddy, open a e-trading account, or make a beer run (unless its an emergency one). So a company can spend $3 million (guesstimated average from last year) on an ad, and actually not know what they get for their money.
The only way you could measure, say, the value of Budweiser's purchase would be for them to not buy an ad one year and see how they do. But no individual ad exec would dare suggest such a thing, because advertising clients aren't exactly friendly to the idea of testing when the spend is in the millions.
This is why, if those limits GB mentioned didn't apply, it may not be as bad as expected, because political ads would become prohibitively expensive, are impossible to measure accurately, and probably do less to help the business directly than a straight product ad.
Not that it wouldn't suck, but if there was ever a time for those good old market self-corrections to jump in a save the rest of us ('cause the Supreme Court sure didn't)...
A business already gets a voice through the people who work there and the people who do business with it, though it is seldom united in what it believes is best. It doesn't need an additional voice on top of that, because then it has undue power in getting it's message into the public eye (as well as drowning out opposing viewpoints). Because the interests of the people who work for the company ARE being addressed, it is being represented, hence why it can be taxed.
W
WolfOfOdin
See, I knew this ruling would eventually come about due to prior precedent on what and how a corporation is viewed as by the Legal System. Sadly, as long as we view them as discreet individuals under the lens of the law, all the rights of an individual can and will eventually apply to a corporation, within the scope of reason.
The obvious answer is to make it so that they're no longer considered an individual...but that brings up a whole slew of other problems, namely that if it's no longer viewed as a singular legal entity, it cannot be properly 'sued', since suits of law are intended to be used on the basis that the object is an individual or an organization that is so large that it logically saves time to treat said thing like an individual in order to have someone to actually blame (this is mainly civil).
The obvious answer is to make it so that they're no longer considered an individual...but that brings up a whole slew of other problems, namely that if it's no longer viewed as a singular legal entity, it cannot be properly 'sued', since suits of law are intended to be used on the basis that the object is an individual or an organization that is so large that it logically saves time to treat said thing like an individual in order to have someone to actually blame (this is mainly civil).
S
Soliloquy
You know what? I'm rooting for the complete collapse of civilization.
Then not only will this not matter, but I won't have to pay back my student loans.
I can think of zero downsides.
Then not only will this not matter, but I won't have to pay back my student loans.
I can think of zero downsides.
- Status