Re: Decision 2016
 

I could come back to that, but let's suppose, for now, that the cap gives you the effect you want.

Now let us say that GGI, instead of giving money to a political candidate, creates and purchases air time for an advertisement either (a) denouncing Politician A, (b) advocating for Politician B, or (c) denouncing or advocating some cause that relates to A or B. No money has been given to the politician him- or herself, and no money has been given to the campaign.

What say you?

edit: You're already meddling more than Mr. Johnson thinks is appropriate, by the way.

Re: Decision 2016
 

I would apply the same tax to all campaign ads.
In fact you just reminded me of another part of my plan.

Any ads that mention the any other candidate are taxed an additional 1000%.

This may take some wording tweaking.
Basically you must state the candidate you are endorsing before buying the ad. Mention any other candidate and you pay the additional tax.

That may be the best way to go about it. Just tax the ads.
I am not saying I have the solutions to all the world's problems but the insane amount of money spent on slander ads is disgusting. I believe there is a way to curtail it with the proper legislation.

I would be willing to soften my stance and lower the tax on ads that are about the candidate and not the opponent. Tell us what you are going to do and not why your opponent sucks.

I need to study the numbers again.

Thank you for the enlightening. I still tend to see the good in people despite my disdain for their wickedness.

Re: Decision 2016
 

What if you're not endorsing a candidate, but running an ad about an issue? Say, abortion, or gun rights?

Re: Decision 2016
 

Has anyone ever done that?
Really, I am racking my brain to think of a single commercial in that style that mentions no candidates.

As it stands if there is no mention of any candidate then I would allow the lower tax rate or perhaps none at all.

Great question. That is worthy of some thought.

Re: Decision 2016
 

They do it all the time. They're called issue ads. They are often used to skirt campaign finance regulations, though there are restrictions. In the campaign finance regulations, as weak as they are.

Re: Decision 2016
 

I must just block those out or perhaps they do not work in Michigan. :)

Anyway, I am inclined to let those slide if they are about issues and not candidates.
Perhaps a lower tax rate instead of none so at least there is a little kick back since that will be where all the money is going.

At least that forces the voters to figure out where each candidate stands.

I would rather see issue ads than slander ads.

This system would have to be fluid as people will always be looking for a way around it.

The biggest problem is there is no way in hell legislators would ever allow such a system.

I think there could be a time where enough good people hold office and such change can occur. We are lazy and compliant and ignore our power to vote and for that we will continue to be prayed(preyed, Freudian slip?) upon by the government and their lobbyists.

Hope springs eternal.

Some day.

Maybe.

I worry about this generation and there obsession with the world that exists in their hand.

Perhaps they will learn their folly and the next generation will use their power of communication for something beyond selfies and pics of tonight's dinner.

Rambling.
Too many local brews.
Swinging on a star. :)

Thank you for the discussion DS.
It is good that I have you and Aldin to keep my grounded.

ollie rules!

Re: Decision 2016
 

You are living in a fantasy world if you think issue ads are not about candidates. And you've seen them, but they were so obviously for a particular candidate that you didn't realize what was happening.

Simple solutions don't work. Not to almost anything. You can campaign with sound bites, but you can't govern that way. Governing requires thoughtfulness, follow-through, and attention to detail.

Re: Decision 2016
 

Absolutely this should be allowed. The World Wildlife Foundation has every right to put out ads about protecting the habitats of endangered creatures. Cancer research funding non-profits can absolutely advocate for legislation that increase said research funding or makes treatments more affordable for victims.
Habitat for Humanity can and ought to be able to promote legislation easing building restrictions so they can construct low-cost housing for low-income residents.
The ACLU absolutely has the right to advocate against all legislation that abridges any citizen's civil liberties.
And if Tim Cook decides that he wants to run ads for or against gun control, you're dang right he should be able to.

Also, true transparency would not only include who donates to whom, but also open records of the donator's complete source of income. Enforce that for all donations over $100 and the system instantly gains that accountability you're looking for.

Also, clearly you aren't for Trump, but with your strong feelings on campaign contributions, can you honestly say that you are for Hillary, based on the extreme amounts of money she and her husband have accepted for 'speeches' that definitely did not result in any political favors of any sort?

Re: Decision 2016
 

You missed my point, Nukatha. An ad that is about any one of those things could be crafted to be about one of the candidates instead. What if the WWF ad goes on about the dangers of the policies associated with one of the candidates? Why do you think that the "issue" ads wouldn't be about the candidates?

Re: Decision 2016
 

If there is only one candidate supporting a bit of legislation that the WWF likes, and the WWF makes an ad explicitly in favor of said legislation, with no mention of the candidate, then yes, that ought to be allowed, and I see nothing wrong with said ad being aired. It isn't the organization's fault that only one candidate sides with them, and WWF should not be penalized for that.
With all that talk though, can you actually think of a better system of advocacy for specific causes than that?

Re: Decision 2016
 

It's a really tough situation. The goal is obviously to have voters be as informed as possible, to the point where the obviously irrelevant and slanderous ads don't have an effect. But you can't pass laws that restrict who can vote, as that fails the democracy test. Pure libertarian views of how politics should work obviously have some perverse consequences, but I am not sure what the answer is. I think individuals making their best effort possible to be informed is the best we can do right now.

Re: Decision 2016
 

You are either deliberately or accidentally continuing to miss my point.

Let's take a specific example. Let's take John Kerry and George W. Bush. Let's say that there is a group of very wealthy people who will benefit from a Bush presidency. Now let's say that those people want to make sure that Bush carries Virginia, a state that has a strong military presence and could go Democrat or Republican.

Those people don't want to advertise their support for Bush. They don't want to tarnish his campaign with their reputation for buying, or attempting to buy, elections. So they find a few Navy veterans, and arrange for those veterans to run an organization into which they - the plutocrats - pour millions and millions of dollars. The selected veterans don't do anything but add their names to the organization as "President" & "Treasurer." Now let's say that organization, we'll call it "Lifeboat Captains for the American Way," finances a bunch of "issue" ads. The LCAW "issue" is "supporting veterans." But what's *really* happening is that the LCAW sponsors ads about how Kerry's support for veterans has been poor, over the years, and throws doubt on Kerry's own record of military service. You say, "attacking Kerry or his platform isn't consistent with 'supporting veterans'!" To which I respond, well, that's not what *they* think, and it's their money and their ad.

Now, that's not exactly what happened in the Bush/Kerry race. I've changed some facts around to make it more suitable to the discussion of "issue ads" and I've otherwise simplified it. But I hope you now see how, with "issue ads" being permissible and other ways to get "soft money" into the system, you're gaining *nothing* with this nonsense "transparency."

Any sponsor who wishes to evade such simplistic "transparency" rules can do so, easily. Big business, foreign powers, whatever.

edit: Poor vegie. He was in the middle of a post illuminating the dark corners of the world of political finance and the black helicopters took him away.