SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The leader of the US Federal Election Commission, the agency charged with regulating the way political money is raised and spent, says she has largely given up hope of reining in abuses in the 2016 US presidential campaign, which could generate a record $10 billion in spending.
“The likelihood of the laws being enforced is slim,” Ann M. Ravel, the chairwoman, said in an interview. “I never want to give up, but I’m not under any illusions. People think the F.E.C. is dysfunctional. It’s worse than dysfunctional.”
Her unusually frank assessment reflects a worsening stalemate among the agency’s six commissioners. They are perpetually locked in 3-to-3 ties along party lines on key votes because of a fundamental disagreement over the mandate of the commission, which was created 40 years ago in response to the political corruption of Watergate.
(Score: 2, Troll) by jmorris on Wednesday May 06 2015, @12:34AM
And if they run out of publicly financed money, well, that's a pretty good flag to raise.
That idea is so fscking retarded it is hard to decide where to start in on it.
Is it your assertion that the Party Media (NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, NYT, etc) would be forbidden from speaking of candidates, issues and politics in general in the period leading up to an election unless it were paid advertising? You do realize they provide billions and billions in unofficial contributions to their preferred candidates and the officially sanctioned 'loyal opposition' candidates. Obama really wouldn't have had to spend a single dollar in 2008 and would probably still been elected, the media (remember the 'thrill up the leg.?) were so eager to extol how wonderful it would be to have a 'post racial' era.
If you give a half-dozen Parties the sort of advertising budgets the two major candidates are likely to have this round, there wouldn't be enough advertising space to sell. The three months leading up to the elections would literally have every single ad slot sold out and most prime time programming sold out as paid infomercials to absorb that much cash. Nice way to throw billions of taxpayer dollars to friends in the Party's Media Shop, not so good for the country. Or is it your plan to ban all of them from the airwaves and force them all to government media like PBS/NPR for officially sanctioned rigged 'debates'?
And what do you do when 'entertainment' programs suddenly start pushing the campaign themes of candidates? Take an example.... an Al Gore type ecowarrior candidate and NBC's routine 'Green Week' programming blitzes where all programming that week weaves eco themes into the plotlines. Wouldn't be much of a stretch (hell, it will happen anyway) to imagine feminist empowerment messages suddenly being amped up to 11 next year when Granny C is in the home stretch to coronation.
No. Freedom of speech is not subject to government regulation.