What if ALL political advertising were banned? Good or bad idea?

[blondeatlast]

It's just something that popped into my head.

Perhaps I should pop it back out, but I think I'll see what happens with this thread first.

[mconvente]

1. Good

The majority of campaign money is spent on TV ads. With networks losing out to TIVO and such, they need to rake in the $$ anyway they can. If Bush gives $25 million more to CNN than Kerry in advertising, he's bound to get more/less harsh coverage than Kerry. Get rid of TV advertising and it'll make it hard to influence stuff. Though I bet when I'm a senior citizen the internet would have way surpassed TV as the #1 media format, so you'll just end up seeing internet ads instead of TV ads.

[wurzel]

2. Yes. Ban them all.

Political ads are as reliable as any other ad. But look at what you are "buying". Minimum of five minute free time messages on TV should be mandatory.

[H2O Man]

3. Bad, Very Bad......

In the case at hand, the republicans are saying we'll stop our lying if the democrats stop telling the truth. Not a fair trade.

[Warpy]

4. I think we would love to see that

There's something deeply wrong with choosing our leaders based on 30 second attack ads.

A better approach would be to allow each candidate 1/2 hour of airtime to tell us who s/he is and what s/he's proposing (for national candadtes, Congress and President) plus one debate for each congress seat, one debate for VP candidates, and the usual 3 for presidential candidates. This would give them all ample time to explain their positions and programs, plus allow for comparisons and contrasts.

Local and state candidates already use mostly print media to get their points across, so they wouldn't be shut out of the media nay more than they are now.

This could be financed publicly, would shorten the agony of the campaign season, and make sense for everybody, especially the voters.

That's probably why it won't be done.

[Liberal Gramma]

6. I'm with you on this

And the candidates should be broadcast simultaneously so the second one can't take advantage of the first one's speech. After that, no ads whatsoever. Now...I just have to figure out how the Republicans would make a mockery of this idea.

[KC21304]

10. I'm with you. Public financing and shorter campaign season.

If the people would realize how much they are actually paying for the system we have now, they would go for public financing in a minute.

We are paying our elected officials to spend 3/4 of their time raising money. We are paying more for goods and services when the price of political contributions are surely passed on to us from corporations.

We are paying dearly for the policies put into place by these officials who have to repay their contributors, especially in environmental but also other areas.

And lastly we are paying for the poor caliber of officials we get because of our campaign financing system. A lot of great people with integrity can not make it if they do not want to play the game.

[loathesomeshrub]

5. Good idea

[allalone]

7. oh please God.

[Junkdrawer]

8. After media reform. maybe...

But as long as the GOP has a monopoly on Radio and Cable TV, I don't think that would be helpful.

[quinnox]

9. Instead of that drastic, equal footing

Each presidential nominee would get 100 million or whatever number for the campaign.

Another option, limit the maximum amount of total donations each candidate could receive, maybe 150 million tops each.

And either way all other third party ads would be banned.

[Yupster]

11. I'd like to see

only the candidates are able to run ads and they must be their own voiceover. I think they'd be more careful what they charge each other with if that were the case.

[AP]

12. There should be MORE advertising, and more free time, and public funding

and people should discuss politics more, and there should be more TV shoes about politics, and there should be more diverse opinions reaching people.

MORE MORE MORE!!! I say.

[zmdem]

13. Personally, I value my first amendment rights

Why would I want to ban people from expressing their political views ?

[sandnsea]

14. Great idea!

I'm SO sick of it. All that gets reported are their speeches and policy papers. Outside groups can't run ads saying anything at all about any candidate. Policies only. I am really just sick of people not knowing what is going on.

[Democat]

15. How would the other challenger beat an incumbent?

Without advertising, how would anyone but an incumbent reach the public?

Incumbents have a huge advantage in the press. The media reports Bush's every word like was important news.

[Chili]

16. great question, was thinking about that yesterday...

...no ads at all, none. More stumping... look at Kerry's crowds... look at how Bush has to be coddled and propped up and babied. If they had to rely SOLELY on their candidate's ability to sway the average person with ideas, on their intellect, on their grasp on reality, on their empathy with the average person... well, I don't even have to finish that sentence. :)

[zmdem]

17. Think again

The President, as the incumbent gets all kinds of press attention. The challenger ? Not so much. Eliminate advertising and you give incumbents a huge advantage.

[Chili]

21. but that's what we have today...

...Kerry's speeches get cut off all the time - like yesterday, to my utter fury - or are not shown at all, while Bush gets to drone on and on about the new-fangled meaning of sovereignty.

In order for campaigning to be fair at all, it's media regulation / reform we need even more - not that I think that's possible, or would pass, but it's sorely needed.

[blondeatlast]

22. Indeed. also offer weekly time on television, say

15 mins. to a half hour, to use as the candidate and his/her handlers see fit.

Equal money, equal time, the rest is up to the candidate.

The reThuglicans will NEVER go for it, although I think that Republican voters might like the idea as well.

[troublemaker]

18. Ban voting and political advertising will wither naturally

[LimpingLib]

19. Based on current bland partisan ads,it would SEEM like a great thing BUT..

... the problem is how far does it reach with regards to what an individual or group can spend money on? Anotherwords , can it become censorship? Are campaign finance laws already censorship?

Take the typical Move-On or Swift Boat ads off and TRUE nothing seems lost. But it misses the point.

The solution IMO is #1 to allow unlimited funding with no limits whatsoever in freedom of purchasing media and whatever they please to send any message they want

#2 is to reconize the public owns the air waves. Take the VHF slots CBS , NBC , and ABC have and devote it full time 24/7 to giving free air time to communitys and during election seasons give every canidate (no matter how "minor") 1 hour per day of free communication with the nation.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ wont allow it. Neither party will take on big media and stand up for the nations property.

[demwing]

20. Bad bad bad...

First, without advertising, the incumbant would always be favored.

Second, with a biased media, ads are a requirement for getting issues and faces into your living room.

Finally, ads are a form of free speech. Banning ads opens thedoorto banning other types of protected speech.

[GreenArrow]

23. IMPERATIVE

It must go.