Our Sponsors
____________________
Note: Comments are moderated so be sure that your responses are expressed in a respectable and friendly way. We are here to express our thoughts toward controversial issues, not to scold or defame anyone. Watch what you say, and remember that by using this site, you agree to our Terms Of Use and Privacy Policy.
Yes I believe so. That way the voters know when the politicians are being controlled by corporations and not just certain individuals.
No. People should be skeptical of all advertisements. People should also be allowed to express opinions anonymously.
"Certain individuals"? like say, union leaders?
My impression is that people are more skeptical of messages which have anonymous sources to them than those which they can attach a credibility to as having a face behind them.
So if anonymous companies and special interest wish to spend money on campaign ads, let them. Most of us will go on ignoring it.
The bigger problem is still not the campaign season, where very little matters and where large numbers of people are paying at least modest levels of attention to screen out the perceived intrusion into the democratic process by anonymous forces. But rather the lobbying which goes on while legislation is written, when very few people are giving even minute attention to detail.
"Certain individuals" meaning George Soros? The guy who pulls Obama's strings?
We already have the knowledge of who pays for political ads, it is called the truth in advertising act and you can see it at the end of each and every political ad.
Or say.. The Chamber of Commerce which pulls the strings on the right? Just asking…
In general this establishes a group with innocuous sounding name rather than the origin of their funding (be that a billionaire, a union, advocacy group of some kind, or a corporate entity)
In some cases you can go back and check out the group yourself and see where the money comes and goes, but most of the time, it's a blank. So far as I'm concerned, it's usually still considered anonymous sourcing and is therefore not worth paying attention to it at all.
So, are you saying that you would rather have an avowed Communist like Soros pull the strings rather than free enterprise like the chamber of commerce?
FYI – in his own words George Soros wants to destroy Capitalism and replace it with a one world government (communist, of course) controlled business system.
So, are you implying that you think it would be better to have a list of all the names and addresses of any and all who contributed to that particular candidates campaign at the end of each ad? I would think that a 15 second ad would have to run about 30 minutes longer just to provide that list. And just WHAT would you do with that information anyway?
Tell me where you read or heard this info on George Soros.
My opinion on the Chamber of Commerce is not all that warm and fuzzy. If you don't think they are pulling any strings…
No. But I'd rather that it is possible to get that information. For many groups, at present, it is not possible to get that information. I don't think it necessary to post it at the end of an ad, because by and large, most people don't care. If a group wants informed voters to take them seriously, then they should declare where their funding is coming from somewhere (other than the ad itself, perhaps mentioning a website for the group with this information declared is sufficient).
If not, then they can spend whatever they want and shouldn't expect it to actually have much impact.
Informed voters would prefer to know where this sort of thing is coming from and they (and I) would publicize it, to agitate against stances or candidate backing which they find disapproval for. Or to express support for those who take stances that they find agreeable. My opinion would be that if corporations and unions want to play the political game, then they should feel pretty comfortable exposing themselves to public resentment when they take stances that are misinformed or perceived as wrong by their customers or donors. Or they should feel pretty comfortable knowing that they won't have much of an impact and are essentially throwing money away.
My guess would be that most corporations already know this and instead of wasting money on elections, spend it on lobbying. So this entire topic is pretty much a useless diversion anyway.