Should the media be required to cap all political advertising by candidates and parties during elections?

Posted on April 26th, 2010 by admin1 in political advertising

I have a debate tomorrow night, help please. We are affirmative but please give points for both sides…:)
Thanks.
from an australian perspective please….lol

No. This is against all principles of Capitalism, Freedom of Speech, and American tradition. I explained each below. Also, I know you said "advertising", but how do you really define advertising? Party-sponsored ads, of course. But then what about the news stories that are presented? Don’t you think a story or investigative report can also be a form of advertising. This is a grey area and that is also explained below…

Capitalism: The news media is run by private organizations whos’ "business" is to deliver the news, but must still make money. News networks get much of their income in exchange for time and sponsorship (commercials, and yes, endorsing political candidates). Simple concept: whichever candidate offers the most to a network, wheather it be money, viewer demographics, ratings, etc. is the candidate with the most favorable face-time.

Freedom of Speech. I hear many people calling for revival of the Fairness Doctrine. This is simply wrong. It is a Communist belief to try to silence all voice of opposition. Americans are guaranteed the right to freedom of speech. How then do you decide what news-coverage is politically motivated to one side or the other? Are you going to have an agency monitor all media channels and log how much time is spent presenting favorable and unfavorable information about each candidate? And who is to decide what is favorable or unfavorable? I mean, if you get a candidate who is a complete dirtbag, criminal, etc, why should a network have to produce te illusion that he/she is on the same level as the honest, experienced candidate?

American Tradition. All of this comes together in that it is the way Americans have always ben influenced. You cannot try to deliberately take away and element of influence because then you are messing with the balance of the system. Many people get their political information from ads. Where do they see these ads? And if the ads are factual, then why force networks to remove them when it is perfectly feasable for a network to twist a "news story" around, making not factual and presenting it, resulting in negative impacts for another candidate.

7 Comments on “Should the media be required to cap all political advertising by candidates and parties during elections?”

  1. lisa425lisa

    No. I believe in Free Speech, and that every American should be most informed about their favorite candidate before they vote on Election Day.References :

  2. insp.harrycallahan

    No, but it should be free of charge. That way, candidates’ wealth is fully negated like it should be–but you knew that already, right?. . . .

    BTW, how about you get that one Aussie fucker to stop buying our papers, before we are 100% tabloid newspapers like our inferiorly-informed British brethren?References : Make our country less for sale!!!
    REAGAN SUCKED!!!
    Dems will rule in 2008!!!. . . .

  3. soperson

    the supreme court struck down the cap idea. they see campaign spending as speech.References :

  4. 2n2222

    Well, the media doesn’t do it: they just run the ads that the campaigns pay for. Contractually, they’re obligated to play all advertisements that have been arranged, at the times agreed upon.

    I don’t see any point to limiting campaign advertising, and I can see a lot of harm, which is why it has never been done here in the US. The potential danger is that the rules could be manipulated to favor an incumbent: for example, after the advertising cut-off, a sitting official could issue statements to the press through his government office, and opponents wouldn’t be able to reply.References :

  5. Just an American

    1.) Most Americans are bored by seemingly endless political campaigns.

    2.) Restricting media money would go a long way in campaign finance reform (in getting special interest money out of the process)

    (Unrestricted lobbyist influence is the largest single obstacle to the US handling its budget responsibly.)

    3.) As this election cycle shows, the media is already (before the first vote is counted) nameing the frontrunners. They base this upon media money raised.References :

  6. Voice of Liberty

    No. This is against all principles of Capitalism, Freedom of Speech, and American tradition. I explained each below. Also, I know you said "advertising", but how do you really define advertising? Party-sponsored ads, of course. But then what about the news stories that are presented? Don’t you think a story or investigative report can also be a form of advertising. This is a grey area and that is also explained below…

    Capitalism: The news media is run by private organizations whos’ "business" is to deliver the news, but must still make money. News networks get much of their income in exchange for time and sponsorship (commercials, and yes, endorsing political candidates). Simple concept: whichever candidate offers the most to a network, wheather it be money, viewer demographics, ratings, etc. is the candidate with the most favorable face-time.

    Freedom of Speech. I hear many people calling for revival of the Fairness Doctrine. This is simply wrong. It is a Communist belief to try to silence all voice of opposition. Americans are guaranteed the right to freedom of speech. How then do you decide what news-coverage is politically motivated to one side or the other? Are you going to have an agency monitor all media channels and log how much time is spent presenting favorable and unfavorable information about each candidate? And who is to decide what is favorable or unfavorable? I mean, if you get a candidate who is a complete dirtbag, criminal, etc, why should a network have to produce te illusion that he/she is on the same level as the honest, experienced candidate?

    American Tradition. All of this comes together in that it is the way Americans have always ben influenced. You cannot try to deliberately take away and element of influence because then you are messing with the balance of the system. Many people get their political information from ads. Where do they see these ads? And if the ads are factual, then why force networks to remove them when it is perfectly feasable for a network to twist a "news story" around, making not factual and presenting it, resulting in negative impacts for another candidate.References :

  7. Luce

    Depends on whether you want popular choice or the person with the richest coffers to rule. In NZ spending is capped which creates a level playing field for all. Without it you can guarantee that the one who has the most money to advertise (or to bribe various sectors of the public) will winReferences :

Leave a Reply