Where Should Politician Funding Come From?

[AntiParty]

Koch brothers spent millions on anti-global warming propaganda. Look at how many repeated it only to later find out it's fact.

 

[oldernwiser]

Koch brothers spent millions on anti-global warming propaganda. Look at how many repeated it only to later find out it's fact.

That the Koch Bros spent millions on anti-global warming propaganda? Or did you mean that it's a fact that the globe is warming?

 

[there4eyeM]

It would be logical to limit how much can be spent on a campaign.

 

[oldernwiser]

There are two things which amuse me about the campaign finance debate.

The first is that some idiots never seem to catch on that money flows to where the power is. The more power you keep giving to the government, the more money is going to flow toward it and capture it.

If you take away power from politicians, you take away the incentive to give them money.

But instead, the dumb shits do stupid things like allow the government to take over health care. Those of you who support ObamaCare actually exacerbated the problem. You just put the government control of health care on steroids, and now you are going to see the money influence rise accordingly.

FIGURE IT OUT!

You give more and more and more power to politicians, and then whine like a retard about all the money they are given because they have all that power you gave them. Jesus H. Christ!


The second thing is that propaganda only works on rubes. If you have any critical thinking skills at all, campaign ads will have zero impact on you.

Unfortunately, this forum proves day after day after day that America is overrun with parroting rubes who believe whatever they are told as long as it comes from the correct partisan source.

And I mean they believe ANYTHING they are told. They see a video of a guy dropping off ballots and are told it is "illegal ballot stuffing" and they swallow that piss like its lemonade.


So the problem is not money. The problem is mental retardation. Gullible rubes eagerly chowing down on manufactured bullshit and regurgitating it into each other's mouths.

adds help. if a man said if elected i will only let people who hate goats vote, could save my self hours of looking up his record and not vote for him.

Political Ads annoy citizens and make them hate politics. If there were not ads and voters simply had to vote on what they researched about the politician, people would care much more about politics. Maybe even have a Fantasy Political Team.

That's the entire point of negative ads - to depress turnout.

Actually, that's NOT the point of negative ads - at least not in today's polisci. Think about it, if a candidate says something that's a LITTLE off he gets a mike pushed in his face everywhere he goes. But who do reporters chase around for PAC ad commentary? Reporters can query a candidate about them, and his response is usually fluff because he knows it can't be tied to his camp. And even if he rebuts the ad, it gets airplay one time - just before the weather - while that attack ad plays twice an hour or more during prime time on every channel in the market for months ahead of the election. Better yet, the candidate doing the attacking doesn't even pay for them, a PAC fund does and they won't be the only one running that type of slander. This also applies to the ads telling us what a candidate stands for - if he doesn't say it directly, then he has plausible deniability when he doesn't deliver. And all it costs that candidate is maybe an appointment to a no-heavy-lifting job later on if he wins. That's why campaign funding limits is a farce. We already knew that you could tell that a politician was lying when you saw his lips move. Now he doesn't have to speak at all - unless he wants to pad his war chest, and then he's talking to people who already believe.

The point of the negative ads is to confuse the turnout. People tend to vote AGAINST something more than they'll vote FOR. If you can give the people enough to be against, you're that much further ahead at poll time.

 

[oldernwiser]

It would be logical to limit how much can be spent on a campaign.

How so?

 

[there4eyeM]

Limiting how much is spent on something is not the same as limiting speech. That way, monitoring would be minimal and transparency maximal.

Equating money with freedom of expression is a bit ridiculous, anyway.

 

[oldernwiser]

Limiting how much is spent on something is not the same as limiting speech. That way, monitoring would be minimal and transparency maximal.

Equating money with freedom of expression is a bit ridiculous, anyway.

I'm just not so sure this is the best way to go. As long as a PAC can gain donations to pay for air time, and they are a separate entity from a candidate, they can say anything they like and still be divorced from the candidate's war chest. In essence, they become part of the campaign without being part of the campaign that's regulated. And, they have a 1st amendment right to do so - as you or I would if we had sufficient funds. Right now, it's not so much the transparency that's the issue, it's the fact that candidates can duck pointed references to certain ads and never have to answer for their content because that isn't part of their direct advertising. A better approach might be to limit the 1st amendment slightly to exclude indirect advertising for or against any candidate - although, that would be a miserable up-hill climb and a bear to defend in challenges later.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Rupert Merdoch *COUGH! COUGH COUGH!*

Is that supposed to mean something? Did you get it from DailyKOS or one of the other Soros hate sites that do your thinking for you?

 

[Uncensored2008]

That's the entire point of negative ads - to depress turnout.

That is a questionable statement.

First off, 90% of negativity in any campaign is done by the demagogue party. The little Goebbles of the DNC engage in the "politics of personal destruction" as a matter of course. Slander and libel define the message of the democrats.

Secondly, low voter turnout usually helps the Republicans, from a statistical standpoint.

SO - negative ads allegedly harm the perpetrator. Your thesis is a contradiction. We must reexamine your thesis.

democrats are demagogues because they gain power from their filth. The lies, innuendo, and half-truths that constitute the entirety of message of the left clearly offer an advantage to the shameful party.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Koch brothers spent millions on anti-global warming propaganda. Look at how many repeated it only to later find out it's fact.

George Soros spent billions buying the democratic party. The democrats gave him hundreds of billions under the TARP bailout.

But you attack the Koch brothers like a good little Soros puppet - no mind of your own, just the hate that your party bosses train your to spew...

 

[Uncensored2008]

Actually, that's NOT the point of negative ads - at least not in today's polisci. Think about it, if a candidate says something that's a LITTLE off he gets a mike pushed in his face everywhere he goes. But who do reporters chase around for PAC ad commentary? Reporters can query a candidate about them, and his response is usually fluff because he knows it can't be tied to his camp. And even if he rebuts the ad, it gets airplay one time - just before the weather - while that attack ad plays twice an hour or more during prime time on every channel in the market for months ahead of the election. Better yet, the candidate doing the attacking doesn't even pay for them, a PAC fund does and they won't be the only one running that type of slander. This also applies to the ads telling us what a candidate stands for - if he doesn't say it directly, then he has plausible deniability when he doesn't deliver. And all it costs that candidate is maybe an appointment to a no-heavy-lifting job later on if he wins. That's why campaign funding limits is a farce. We already knew that you could tell that a politician was lying when you saw his lips move. Now he doesn't have to speak at all - unless he wants to pad his war chest, and then he's talking to people who already believe.

The point of the negative ads is to confuse the turnout. People tend to vote AGAINST something more than they'll vote FOR. If you can give the people enough to be against, you're that much further ahead at poll time.

if a REPUBLICAN candidate says something that's a LITTLE off he gets a mike pushed in his face.

Hillary spent years selling U.S. foreign policy to Iran and other hostile nations, and the press forms a protective circle insulating her. Her entire tenure was a pay to play scam selling favors to the highest bidder.

The press is the propaganda corps of the party. It attacks those who challenge the party, and protects those who are in the grace of the party.

 

[oldernwiser]

That's the entire point of negative ads - to depress turnout.

That is a questionable statement.

First off, 90% of negativity in any campaign is done by the demagogue party. The little Goebbles of the DNC engage in the "politics of personal destruction" as a matter of course. Slander and libel define the message of the democrats.

Secondly, low voter turnout usually helps the Republicans, from a statistical standpoint.

SO - negative ads allegedly harm the perpetrator. Your thesis is a contradiction. We must reexamine your thesis.

democrats are demagogues because they gain power from their filth. The lies, innuendo, and half-truths that constitute the entirety of message of the left clearly offer an advantage to the shameful party.

First, that's just bullshit. During the last campaign, the right dominated all the advertising in my area with pro Thom Tillis and anti Kay Hagen ads. I could count on hearing how Hagen supported medicaid expansion and had consistently voted with Obama (true facts, but given as a net negative) no less than 3 times every half hour - sometimes back to back. And you haven't been paying attention to the tiny little words at the bottom of the screen when they play these things. It shows who paid for them - AFP is certainly not affiliated with the DNC.

On voter turnout, you're right. Statistically, enough Republicans still consistently exercise their rights so that if Democrats don't show up Democrat candidates don't fare well. But why do you need advertising when gerrymandering and voting rules changes serves the purpose even better? My premise is that the Republican negative ads aren't geared toward disabusing the Democrats, it's to draw MORE Republicans out. As I've said (maybe in this thread - don't remember), most people don't vote FOR a candidate, they vote AGAINST one (this isn't just my opinion - it's PoliSci) and so, clearly, negative ads are designed to induce a HIGHER turnout to vote AGAINST an issue.

 

[FA_Q2]

That's the entire point of negative ads - to depress turnout.

That is a questionable statement.

First off, 90% of negativity in any campaign is done by the demagogue party. The little Goebbles of the DNC engage in the "politics of personal destruction" as a matter of course. Slander and libel define the message of the democrats.

Secondly, low voter turnout usually helps the Republicans, from a statistical standpoint.

SO - negative ads allegedly harm the perpetrator. Your thesis is a contradiction. We must reexamine your thesis.

democrats are demagogues because they gain power from their filth. The lies, innuendo, and half-truths that constitute the entirety of message of the left clearly offer an advantage to the shameful party.

First, that's just bullshit. During the last campaign, the right dominated all the advertising in my area with pro Thom Tillis and anti Kay Hagen ads. I could count on hearing how Hagen supported medicaid expansion and had consistently voted with Obama (true facts, but given as a net negative) no less than 3 times every half hour - sometimes back to back. And you haven't been paying attention to the tiny little words at the bottom of the screen when they play these things. It shows who paid for them - AFP is certainly not affiliated with the DNC.

On voter turnout, you're right. Statistically, enough Republicans still consistently exercise their rights so that if Democrats don't show up Democrat candidates don't fare well. But why do you need advertising when gerrymandering and voting rules changes serves the purpose even better? My premise is that the Republican negative ads aren't geared toward disabusing the Democrats, it's to draw MORE Republicans out. As I've said (maybe in this thread - don't remember), most people don't vote FOR a candidate, they vote AGAINST one (this isn't just my opinion - it's PoliSci) and so, clearly, negative ads are designed to induce a HIGHER turnout to vote AGAINST an issue.

^This.

Negative ads are not used to depress turnout - that is a silly idea. They are actively used to enrage your supporters so that they come out and vote for you. The sad reality is that taking a position and/or promoting an idea takes work and requires some thought but it is easy as hell to make the other guy sound like evil incarnate.