Make commercials more expensive and elections more equitable.

[I'm Supposn]

Make commercials more expensive and elections more equitable.

The purposes of public announcements or advertising is to inform and/or influencetheir audiences. Government should not presume to determine what is or is not a political message.
Although purchasing electronic broadcasting time is expensive, it's been (by far) the most effective media for influencing public opinion, and it's the least expensive method per capita for reaching mass audiences.

The availabilityof electronic broadcasting is of greater advantage to wealthier political factions, and its lesser availability to less wealthy factions is to their greater disadvantages.
Supreme Court's decision in favor of Citizens United effectively and severely reduced government's ability to decrease high bidders advantages and/or greater increase their costs within our political auctions, (i.e. our political elections).

Apparentlyforeign nations and international corporations are among the highest of those bidders. If we cannot reduce wealth's political advantage, we can at least not grant them government subsidies paid from our general federal budget.
I'm a proponent for the tasks of selling, distributing, or purchasing electronic transmission time be “unbundled” from all other commercial tasks, and no reduction of taxable income should be granted for purchase of time or use of electronic transmissions.
[There's a precedent for such “unbundling”. U.S. Federal court required the International Business Machine Corporation to “unbundle” their sales or leases of their equipment from all of their other goods and service products].

This proposal would consequentially increase sales of print media's advertisements to the detriment of enterprises now selling advertisements transmitted electronically and to some extent may also increase TV cable and satellite prices.

Even wealthier shareholders will no longer appreciate their enterprises'electronic advertisements with substantially political purposes. It will reduce wealth's ability to influence those who read less, and not likely increase their influence upon those who read more.

Respectfully,Supposn

 

[Mycroft]

Make commercials more expensive and elections more equitable.

The purposes of public announcements or advertising is to inform and/or influencetheir audiences. Government should not presume to determine what is or is not a political message.
Although purchasing electronic broadcasting time is expensive, it's been (by far) the most effective media for influencing public opinion, and it's the least expensive method per capita for reaching mass audiences.

The availabilityof electronic broadcasting is of greater advantage to wealthier political factions, and its lesser availability to less wealthy factions is to their greater disadvantages.
Supreme Court's decision in favor of Citizens United effectively and severely reduced government's ability to decrease high bidders advantages and/or greater increase their costs within our political auctions, (i.e. our political elections).

Apparentlyforeign nations and international corporations are among the highest of those bidders. If we cannot reduce wealth's political advantage, we can at least not grant them government subsidies paid from our general federal budget.
I'm a proponent for the tasks of selling, distributing, or purchasing electronic transmission time be “unbundled” from all other commercial tasks, and no reduction of taxable income should be granted for purchase of time or use of electronic transmissions.
[There's a precedent for such “unbundling”. U.S. Federal court required the International Business Machine Corporation to “unbundle” their sales or leases of their equipment from all of their other goods and service products].

This proposal would consequentially increase sales of print media's advertisements to the detriment of enterprises now selling advertisements transmitted electronically and to some extent may also increase TV cable and satellite prices.

Even wealthier shareholders will no longer appreciate their enterprises'electronic advertisements with substantially political purposes. It will reduce wealth's ability to influence those who read less, and not likely increase their influence upon those who read more.

Respectfully,Supposn

I don't know...it's been said that the Russians influenced the 2016 election so much they got Trump elected against all odds...and yet, they spend mere thousands of dollars. Somehow that money was MUCH more powerful than the billion+ that all the campaigns and the PACs spent.

Sounds to me like your legislation would be useless. The only thing I hate more that bad legislation is useless legislation. (but don't worry...your legislation is bad, too)

I vote no.

 

[joko104]

The more expensive the commercials, the more money buys the elections.

 

[Xelor]

​

 

[I'm Supposn]

You also have to tackle lobbying and the revolving door between the private and public sector as well.

In general, a multipronged approach of limiting the effective market of campaign finance (legally defined, limited, brief campaign seasons), public funding of elections, and limiting contributions and spending, as well as full and complete transparency in relation to lobbyist interactions/meetings with elected officials, and the overall thrust of their intentions/presentations at those meetings would be an effective approach. Personally I would also assert that a lifetime ban on lobbying for elected officials is a good idea, as well as a 'cooling off' period before they're permitted to take cheques for speaking engagements and so on on behalf of private institutions/corporations. ...

SurRealistik, public funding of political campaigns, (if they would have any effect), would effectively increase aggregate political campaign budgets and thus indirectly contribute to political advantages of wealth. The Supreme Court determined that you legally cannot effectively limit individuals political campaign spending.

Regarding public's rights and those of individual's leaving government service:

For many months within many years, Ronald Reagan was the political spokesman for corporations. The corporations were not just selling their products or their corporate images; they were also broadcasting their own political opinions. Government cannot and should not attempt to determine the motivating purposes of any messages. Limiting the political campaign season isn't a feasible option.

The other concepts you mentioned are very worthy of consideration. Here again, similar to individuals' rights of free speech, individuals no longer serving as appointed or elected government officers, should regain some rights as to how they can earn their incomes. There has to be some balance between the sacrifices we may require of those that choose to be of public service, and their individual rights.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Surrealistik]

SurRealistik, public funding of political campaigns, (if they would have any effect), would effectively increase aggregate political campaign budgets and thus indirectly contribute to political advantages of wealth. The Supreme Court determined that you legally cannot effectively limit individuals political campaign spending.

Regarding public's rights and those of individual's leaving government service:

For many months within many years, Ronald Reagan was the political spokesman for corporations. The corporations were not just selling their products or their corporate images; they were also broadcasting their own political opinions. Government cannot and should not attempt to determine the motivating purposes of any messages. Limiting the political campaign season isn't a feasible option.

The other concepts you mentioned are very worthy of consideration. Here again, similar to individuals' rights of free speech, individuals no longer serving as appointed or elected government officers, should regain some rights as to how they can earn their incomes. There has to be some balance between the sacrifices we may require of those that choose to be of public service, and their individual rights.

Respectfully, Supposn

Except that these limitations and public financing of elections have been successfully utilized in other countries that are considered to be much fairer and more representative and healthy democracies than us ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index ) , so yes, it is absolutely feasible as a matter of practice to institute such policies to the betterment of democracy. You are however correct that the SCOTUS idiotically and disastrously decided per the Buckley v Valeo 76 ruling, as I'd mentioned earlier, that political spending is tantamount to speech and thus cannot be curtailed or infringed upon. Because this is so, we have since been left with a de facto plutocracy ( https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites...testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf ) as the lobbying and media blitzing dollars originating from the wealthy largely and predictably drowned out everyone else, and afforded the rich vastly undue and disproportionate influence; for that reason, to preserve the fundamental integrity of democracy and representation, the government must and should be able to apply limits that have been proven greatly successful in other developed, wealthy and notably more vibrant democracies.

Moreover, public financing of elections generally makes for a more equitable playing field on the whole as it permits resources to political parties that are popular, but not necessarily supported by rarefied private interests. That said, it should certainly be utilized in tandem with either a limited market for political spending, limits on aggregate political spending, or both.

 

[I'm Supposn]

I don't know...it's been said that the Russians influenced the 2016 election so much they got Trump elected against all odds...and yet, they spend mere thousands of dollars. Somehow that money was MUCH more powerful than the billion+ that all the campaigns and the PACs spent.

Sounds to me like your legislation would be useless. The only thing I hate more that bad legislation is useless legislation. (but don't worry...your legislation is bad, too)

I vote no.

Mycroft, you're apparently more knowledgeable than I regarding to how much the Russians spent. I'm not greatly distressed that foreign governments attempt to intervene within our elections. I'm more concerned as to what extent we may be influenced by rumors, social web sights, political pundents, or to what extent we voters think for ourselves.

This proposal concerns purchase of electronic broadcasting time that's served to reduce taxable income and somewhat reduced our governments' tax revenues. I don't know if those lost tax revenues as you are actually as you state to be in the millions, or hundreds of thousand dollars within our aggregate political elections.

It is not the losses of tax revenues, but rather the government subsidy of political broadcasting I'm most opposed to. Tax subsidy increases the bidding prices of our political auctions, (our elections), and that in turn increases the political advantages of those who are more wealthy.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[I'm Supposn]

Excerpted from
https://www.loc.gov/law/help/campaign-finance/index.php .

This report examines campaign finance laws, including those governing the length of the campaign period, funding sources and disclosure requirements, restrictions on contributions and expenditures, and free speech implications of such restrictions, in Australia, France, Germany, Israel, and the United Kingdom.