Why do US election campaigns take so fucking long?

[Elfdart]

There was an old joke about how if airlines advertised the way politicians did, nobody would fly. I'm also in favor of getting rid of TV and radio ads and giving candidates free time for debates, interviews, town hall meetings and such.

[HemlockGrey]

It's also a bad sign when political advisors like Karl Rove shape national policy in order to win votes.

[Stormbringer]

It's also a bad sign when political advisors like Karl Rove shape national policy in order to win votes.

Egh, shaping one's policies to the voter base regardless of public good is hardly something new. It's been done as long as their have been democracies.

[tharkûn]

The problem with banning anything political is that the money involved allows people to hire top notch brains and lawyers. If a way can be found around the law ... it will be found. If there is a legal challenge that can possibly raised ... it will be. Even if you just restrict the politicos to the newspapers and debates they will still find simple effective ways to reach the poverbial dumbass voter.

[Darth Wong]

The problem with banning anything political is that the money involved allows people to hire top notch brains and lawyers. If a way can be found around the law ... it will be found. If there is a legal challenge that can possibly raised ... it will be. Even if you just restrict the politicos to the newspapers and debates they will still find simple effective ways to reach the poverbial dumbass voter.

Are you suggesting that the possibility of loopholes means we shouldn't even try? Why not simply reduce the tax rate to zero for the wealthy then, since they will find loopholes in the law?

[Aeolus]

Darth Wong I understand your point on abolishing tv ads for canidates. But there is simply no way the courts would allow it. Third party political ads are protected speech under the first amendment.

[Darth Wong]

Darth Wong I understand your point on abolishing tv ads for canidates. But there is simply no way the courts would allow it. Third party political ads are protected speech under the first amendment.

Wrong. The first amendment does not preclude regulation of the time, place, and manner of expression. No one is saying that they cannot have a venue to express themselves, but it should be in print. Reading requires more active mental interaction than watching TV.

[tharkûn]

Are you suggesting that the possibility of loopholes means we shouldn't even try? Why not simply reduce the tax rate to zero for the wealthy then, since they will find loopholes in the law

I support a simplified tax. Simple graduated tax with at most 10 modifiers (kids, elder care, etc.) and none of this present BS. People would end up paying less, the government would get more, and the only losers would be tax accountants. Trying to catch the cheaters takes resources and the more complicated you make the process, the less return you get.

Same thing for politics, the more complicated you make the process, the less return. I seriously doubt that the dubious effort of creating a loophole ridden "ban" is going to be better than just removing all the restrictions.

[Darth Wong]

I support a simplified tax. Simple graduated tax with at most 10 modifiers (kids, elder care, etc.) and none of this present BS. People would end up paying less, the government would get more, and the only losers would be tax accountants. Trying to catch the cheaters takes resources and the more complicated you make the process, the less return you get.

Yes, I've heard that the US income tax code is ludicrously complex.

Same thing for politics, the more complicated you make the process, the less return. I seriously doubt that the dubious effort of creating a loophole ridden "ban" is going to be better than just removing all the restrictions.

I don't see what's complicated at all about simply saying "no radio or TV political ads by anybody." How do you find a loophole in that?

EDIT: I suppose you could try to pull a FoxNews and pass off propaganda as news, but that's the only one I can think of right now. At least that is restricted to particular stations and is not blasted everywhere.

[HemlockGrey]

Egh, shaping one's policies to the voter base regardless of public good is hardly something new. It's been done as long as their have been democracies.

Yes, but it's a relatively new phenomenon that people who's sole occupation is planning political strategy, i.e. Karl Rove, are able to shape major national policy decisions, when they do not hold any sort of elected office, civil service, or Cabinet positions.

[Joe]

That is not a new phenomenon, at least not one originating with Bush. How do you think Senator Clinton got her start?

[Elfdart]

The Supreme Court ruled many years ago that the government COULD bar advertising (or anything else) from the public airwaves. It's why Howard Stern is getting fucked over. If the FCC can fine him for saying "PUSSY!" on the air , then they can restrict political ads, too.

[Uraniun235]

I don't see what's complicated at all about simply saying "no radio or TV political ads by anybody." How do you find a loophole in that?

One could theoretically write a blistering attack on their opponent and dress it up as a satirical work.

[HemlockGrey]

That is not a new phenomenon, at least not one originating with Bush. How do you think Senator Clinton got her start?

Within the last 15-20 years is rather new compared to the age of the country.

[Darth Wong]

I don't see what's complicated at all about simply saying "no radio or TV political ads by anybody." How do you find a loophole in that?

One could theoretically write a blistering attack on their opponent and dress it up as a satirical work.

A written article would fall outside the bounds of such a regulation anyway, so I don't see what that has to do with anything.

[tharkûn]

I don't see what's complicated at all about simply saying "no radio or TV political ads by anybody." How do you find a loophole in that?

Start your own news show. Approach random citizens for public comment, they just happen to be randomly selected at places like gun conventions, pro-life protests, etc. Omit any direct reference to the candidate, but speak about a "hypothetical person" who everyone can recognize.

Sure most of these are half-assed, but when you can spend millions of dollars litigating and the same hiring people to do nothing but FIND such loopholes. More time and brainpower is going to go into defeating this than is going to go into creating it, somebody will find a way to work around.

[Darth Wong]

I don't see what's complicated at all about simply saying "no radio or TV political ads by anybody." How do you find a loophole in that?

Start your own news show. Approach random citizens for public comment, they just happen to be randomly selected at places like gun conventions, pro-life protests, etc. Omit any direct reference to the candidate, but speak about a "hypothetical person" who everyone can recognize.

Why be so circumspect? Hell, FOXNews is much more blatant than that. But still, they're restricted to their own channel, and this hypothetical show would be restricted to a particular timeslot. People would have to want to view it and seek it out on the dial, rather than being bombarded with it during every other commercial break when they're trying to watch baseball.

Sure most of these are half-assed, but when you can spend millions of dollars litigating and the same hiring people to do nothing but FIND such loopholes. More time and brainpower is going to go into defeating this than is going to go into creating it, somebody will find a way to work around.

The same could be said of any law. It doesn't mean there's no point trying, and this one would be very simple to implement, if anyone actually wanted to.

[tharkûn]

Why be so circumspect? Hell, FOXNews is much more blatant than that

You can do whatever you want, the point is with our collective brains we have found ways to skirt your proposed law in MINUTES. What are lawyers going to be able to do with thousands of man-hours and millions of dollars?

But still, they're restricted to their own channel, and this hypothetical show would be restricted to a particular timeslot.

There is absolutely nothing stopping you from making a 30 second "newscast", whatever you want to put on the air during your "commercial" pretty much goes. "Public service announcements" can be made wherever you buy the time.

The same could be said of any law. It doesn't mean there's no point trying, and this one would be very simple to implement, if anyone actually wanted to.

Most laws don't have millions of dollars funneled into defeating them. Most laws don't target people where EVERY one of the targets will shortly have the means and incentive to skirt it.

Trust me, by the time the lawyers got done with it, the ONLY way you'd get to implement it would be to get a constitutional amendment or sufficient popular support that getting said amendment would be trivial.

[Uraniun235]

A written article would fall outside the bounds of such a regulation anyway, so I don't see what that has to do with anything.

I meant to say "write and produce", i.e. like a skit you might see on SNL.

[1337n1nj4]

It may sound good on paper to ban the TV mud-slinging festivals, but that's a slippery slope I don't want to go down.

As much as I hate those ads, there's too much potential for abuse. The government already has too much say over what is and isn't acceptable for the public. Giving them more power isn't the answer.