There are a few threads which people are talking about negitive political ads. I thought that I would start a new topic about it in the general sense-not any specific ad.

To me, bashing someone's charactor is just absurb. (That goes with along with my post that when name calling starts-that person doesn't has anything intellegent to add to the issue and lost the debate.)

I think that an incumbant should just ride on their own record. i.e. "I have done this, that, and the other thing while I was in office."

I also think that the challenger should focus on what he/she intends to do if elected.


Opinions?



Cat

I agree with you Cat.  The more negative campaigning somebody does, the LESS ideas I think they have for making the country better.

"I'm Lyric Boy and I approved of this Posting..."  :P

I agree with you 100%, Cat.  I think you should get a job writing political ads. 

I agree. That's why I don't watch the political BS ads. :P

IMO, NO negative ads should be allowed.  Whether it's politics, auto manufacturers, food, whatever.  I don't really care to hear your opinion (the advertisers) on what's WRONG with your competition, I want to hear what's RIGHT about your product/candidate/whatever.

How do you define "negative"?
I would FORBID all private money.  I believe in funding campaigns completely through tax money, the same pool, equal funding for all candidates.  No television ads, but free debate time on television for all candidates.  My goal is to make campaigns about ideas, not money.

I wish Kerry would talk more about his congressional record.  I know it's not stellar, actually, it's rather lackluster.  At least he'd be able to expose the lie that he's voted for tax increases 351 times.  The only time he voted for an actualy INCREASE was in 1993, the result of that was economic recovery and eight years of growth.

How do you define "negative"?
I would FORBID all private money.  I believe in funding campaigns completely through tax money, the same pool, equal funding for all candidates.  No television ads, but free debate time on television for all candidates.  My goal is to make campaigns about ideas, not money.
.


Yes, that is idea that should have been implemented decades ago.  The only campaigning would
be via uncensored televison and radio debates. Speeches would be aired at specific time, with
specific time limtiations.  Newspapers could print the text of the speeches, and debates uncensored.

How do you define "negative"?
I would FORBID all private money.  I believe in funding campaigns completely through tax money, the same pool, equal funding for all candidates.  No television ads, but free debate time on television for all candidates.  My goal is to make campaigns about ideas, not money.





Good point. Unfortunately in our system, it seems like the one with the most money wins. The best democracy money can buy? I also don't like that some group (whether it be moveon.org or some right wing group) posting political ads. But, if we deny them that, that may be a violation of the First Admendment-a slippery slope to say the least. As annoying as it may be, I am glad that candidates state, "I am _____ and I approve this ad." If they don't say that, you can bet that it is some other group with boocoo bucks to spend to try to sell their candidate (so they can have favors after the election?) And most of these ads by other orginazations are negitive.



Cat

I would FORBID all private money.  I believe in funding campaigns completely through tax money, the same pool, equal funding for all candidates.  No television ads, but free debate time on television for all candidates.  My goal is to make campaigns about ideas, not money.

That's going to have some serious First-Amendment problems, but other than that, sounds much better than what we have today.


Here is my proposal for campaign finance reform:

Private Donations ONLY  By PRIVATE, I mean by INDIVIDUAL PEOPLE tp SPECIFIC CANDIDATES.  No Company or Union contributions allowed.  No "PAC" contributions alllowed.

No Interloping Contributions  By that I mean that I am prohibited from donating money to a candidate for whom I am ineligible to vote for.  In other words, as a resident of Indiana, I can not contribute to whoever is running for Senator in Vermont.  I can not donate money to someone who is running for County Commissioner for a county other than mine.  People who are ineligible to vote in a given election should not be interfering with that electorate's processes.

No Federal Tax Dollars Why do "matching funds" when we see all of the abuse, negative ads, soft dollars that go on anyway?  Save the money for the Treasury.  We need it.

My proposal, if it were ever implemented, would take the corruption of "outsider money" out of much of the election process.  Not a perfect proposal, but much better than what goes on now.

That's going to have some serious First-Amendment problems, but other than that, sounds much better than what we have today.


Here is my proposal for campaign finance reform:

Private Donations ONLY  By PRIVATE, I mean by INDIVIDUAL PEOPLE tp SPECIFIC CANDIDATES.  No Company or Union contributions allowed.  No "PAC" contributions alllowed.

No Interloping Contributions  By that I mean that I am prohibited from donating money to a candidate for whom I am ineligible to vote for.  In other words, as a resident of Indiana, I can not contribute to whoever is running for Senator in Vermont.  I can not donate money to someone who is running for County Commissioner for a county other than mine.  People who are ineligible to vote in a given election should not be interfering with that electorate's processes.

No Federal Tax Dollars Why do "matching funds" when we see all of the abuse, negative ads, soft dollars that go on anyway?  Save the money for the Treasury.  We need it.

My proposal, if it were ever implemented, would take the corruption of "outsider money" out of much of the election process.  Not a perfect proposal, but much better than what goes on now.


Your proposal makes sense, but how could you inforce it?  Corporations are, by law, individuals, and how could you stop an employer from giving $$$ to workers in order for them to contribute it to the employer's candidate, or unions doing the same thing?

you couldn't, but it'd be kinda hard for a corporation to explain the expenditure (#1) and (#2) the odds of a corporation doing something like that are slim, IMO.


That may be your opinion, but there are numerous examples of corporate big-wigs "financing" the political contributions of their underlings, both using their own funds or corporate funds to do so.  Do the name Enron ring a bell?  Accoiunting fraud is rampant in corporate American.  Didn't you know that 2 + 2 = 20?

I don't want to be insulting, but your confidence just seems very nieve to me.  No offence intended.

That's going to have some serious First-Amendment problems, but other than that, sounds much better than what we have today.
Campaign finance reform will involve wrangling with First Amendment conflicts.  I certainly would not want campaign finance reform to violate the First Amendment.  However, I draw the line at construing money as speech. Money is not speech.  Money is property.  If money is speech, and you have one dollar, and I have one hundred million dollars, I have one hundred million times more speech than you.  Not fair.  My objection is the current ability of money to saturate media markets with the moneyed candidate's messages while the candidate with little or no money has his voice drowned out.


Here is my proposal for campaign finance reform:

Private Donations ONLY  By PRIVATE, I mean by INDIVIDUAL PEOPLE tp SPECIFIC CANDIDATES.  No Company or Union contributions allowed.  No "PAC" contributions alllowed.  This is basically a good idea, but as DC points out, the corporation is legally an individual.  Corporate lobbyists would definitely take you to task.  However, I think the courts--though not the current U.S. Supreme--could defeat such an argument.  You would also need a contribution cap.  Billionaires like George Soros and Donald Trump have pockets deep enough to "buy" candidates.

No Interloping Contributions  By that I mean that I am prohibited from donating money to a candidate for whom I am ineligible to vote for.  In other words, as a resident of Indiana, I can not contribute to whoever is running for Senator in Vermont.  I can not donate money to someone who is running for County Commissioner for a county other than mine.  People who are ineligible to vote in a given election should not be interfering with that electorate's processes.
A good idea, but rather hard to enforce.  How do you track the origins of funds from individual donors.  It would be quite simple to violate the spirit of the law. If a billionaire from Texas wants a certain candidate to win in Oklahoma, how do you stop him from "laundering" money to a certain Oklahoman proxie who could contribute to the candidate?  What about the Presidential election in which every state votes for the candidate?

No Federal Tax Dollars Why do "matching funds" when we see all of the abuse, negative ads, soft dollars that go on anyway?  Save the money for the Treasury.  We need it. 
If Americans value the democratic process, they ought to be willing to pay a nominal sum via there taxes in order to fund campaigns.  It would give everybody a stake in the process.  Such a tax wouldn't need to be very much per individual. 

In the US is there no limit set on the amount that a party or person can spend during the election campaign?

Obviously the UK system is different because we don't have a President or the electoral college system (which I am determined to understand one day!) but here the are limits set on the amount that can be donated and an absolute amount that can be spent in campaigning.

I did a quick Google search and this is the best link I could find.  It's talking about the introduction of a political funding register of donors that became law a couple of years or so ago.  It also has details of the maximum that can be spent during campaigning (£15million I think it said)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/1173003.stm

but corporate funds should not be allowed.


But they ARE allowed, and they flow into the coffers of those who support their agenda's.  Just today Vermont filed suit against the FDA for supporting the drug biggies in not allowing Vermont to buy drugs from Canada.  And how much $$$ does the drug indistry give to Lil' Georgie?

I don’t think it is right for Kerry to play on his alleged heroics when he came back and demonstrated against the war along with Hanoi Jane Fonda. That was very demoralizing to troops who fought and served proudly.

I don’t think it is right for Kerry to play on his alleged heroics when he came back and demonstrated against the war along with Hanoi Jane Fonda. That was very demoralizing to troops who fought and served proudly.



Well if you had been around then you would have known the kind of courage it took for him to come back and demonstrate against the war.  It wasn't like it is now.  People were killed for demonstrating, ever here of a place called Kent State?  Kerry wasn't the only vet who cam back and worked to end the war, there were thousands of vets who decided that the lives of their fellow troops were jeopardized for all the wrong reasons, history has proved them right.  The Viet Vets against the War gave huge credibility to the anti-war effort, and because of Kerry and men like him the wall in Washington is alot shorter than it would have been.  Or perhaps you think it would have been better if everyone kept there mouths shut and did what they were told while a few thousand more died.

the electoral college system (which I am determined to understand one day!)


Good luck, Karen.  I was born in this country and I still don't understand the system. 

In the US is there no limit set on the amount that a party or person can spend during the election campaign?

Obviously the UK system is different because we don't have a President or the electoral college system (which I am determined to understand one day!) but here the are limits set on the amount that can be donated and an absolute amount that can be spent in campaigning.

I did a quick Google search and this is the best link I could find.  It's talking about the introduction of a political funding register of donors that became law a couple of years or so ago.  It also has details of the maximum that can be spent during campaigning (£15million I think it said)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/1173003.stm



We could definately learn from you guys across the "pond" but unfortunately, I am afraid we won't.  But, I keep hoping.





Cat

We could definately learn from you guys across the "pond" but unfortunately, I am afraid we won't.  But, I keep hoping.





Cat


I don't know Cat, the House of Lords has just gotten around to figuring out that birth isn't  be the sole reason for the ability to govern.  That "divine right of kings"  thing seems to loom large with the aristicracy.

I don't know Cat, the House of Lords has just gotten around to figuring out that birth isn't  be the sole reason for the ability to govern.  That "divine right of kings"  thing seems to loom large with the aristicracy.



Well, maybe not EVERYTHING, but some things we can learn.




Cat

Well if you had been around then you would have known the kind of courage it took for him to come back and demonstrate against the war.  It wasn't like it is now.  People were killed for demonstrating, ever here of a place called Kent State?  Kerry wasn't the only vet who cam back and worked to end the war, there were thousands of vets who decided that the lives of their fellow troops were jeopardized for all the wrong reasons, history has proved them right.  The Viet Vets against the War gave huge credibility to the anti-war effort, and because of Kerry and men like him the wall in Washington is alot shorter than it would have been.  Or perhaps you think it would have been better if everyone kept there mouths shut and did what they were told while a few thousand more died.


Yeah, it really took courage to stand before Congress and call his brothers-in-arms a bunch of rapists, baby killers and war criminals.

He later was forced to admit that he had never seen any of this activity take place, and as such, his "testimony" was at best hearsay and at worse propaganda.  And his "testimony" was then used as part of interrogations by the NVA at the Hanoi Hilton.

Despicable.

Vietnam Vets do not deny that kerry had the right to oppose the war and to be vocal about it.  But his blanket characterization of his "brothers in arms" as war criminals was wholly unneccessary and was a blatant lie.

It's obvious to me the right-wing will spare no expense trying to defeat Kerry.  If Kerry gets in, they fear, the fat cat gravy train will be over, and wouldn't that be the worst thing in the world?  It is the same Republican noise machine trying to destroy Kerry that tried to destroy Clinton, and tried to destroy Gore.
When they didn't get Clinton removed from office, and they didn't defeat Gore, they just stole the election. 
The way Bill O'Reilly threw a hissy fit on "Meet The Press" at Paul Krugman indicates a level of anxiety and hysteria amongst the right-wing.  I think they're afraid they may neither be able to win nor steal the 2004 Presidential election, and it scares the h*ll out of them!

It's obvious to me the right-wing will spare no expense trying to defeat Kerry.  If Kerry gets in, they fear, the fat cat gravy train will be over, and wouldn't that be the worst thing in the world?  It is the same Republican noise machine trying to destroy Kerry that tried to destroy Clinton, and tried to destroy Gore.
When they didn't get Clinton removed from office, and they didn't defeat Gore, they just stole the election. 
The way Bill O'Reilly threw a hissy fit on "Meet The Press" at Paul Krugman indicates a level of anxiety and hysteria amongst the right-wing.  I think they're afraid they may neither be able to win nor steal the 2004 Presidential election, and it scares the h*ll out of them!


Hate to burst your bubble, but the fat cats make out regardless of which party is in power.  Look at the "Big Money" that contributes to either campaign.

Hate to burst your bubble, but the fat cats make out regardless of which party is in power.  Look at the "Big Money" that contributes to either campaign.


Ah, yes, they do make out when either party is in power, however, I'm talking about the degree of making out.
President Bush is an errand boy for corporate America.  He supports the reverse Robin Hood policies of the farcical theory called "Supply Side Economics."  Bush favors cutting capital gains taxes to as niggardly a percentile as possible.  Bush believes in the outrigh elimination of the estate tax, which would benefit mostly the top few percentile of estates.  Bush believes corporations should write environmental policies to the greatest extent possible.
Kerry can't turn this country into Sweden, nor does he want to, but the if he wins the Presidency, all of these Rightie values are a little less secure.  The fat cats don't like to take chances.

There's also the psychological aspect.  Bush gives the fat cats their divine hommage.  It's the Jesus--weds--Ayn Rand theology that says the rich are blessed for their virtue and piety, while the poor are damned for their sin and heresy.  When a Democrat is elected, no matter how rich, this message grows a little dimmer.

Yeah, it really took courage to stand before Congress and call his brothers-in-arms a bunch of rapists, baby killers and war criminals.

Vietnam Vets do not deny that kerry had the right to oppose the war and to be vocal about it.  But his blanket characterization of his "brothers in arms" as war criminals was wholly unneccessary and was a blatant lie.


Read the transcript.  He did not call his brothers-in-arms a bunch of rapists, baby killers and war criminals.  He did state that atrocities happened, perpertrated on innocents by members of our armed forces. The army does not deny that fact.  That is why we had so many vets who returned to the states psychologically damaged, some by what they had seen and some by what they had done.  I know vets who still go to vets only counceling sessions just to talk out what they had seen and/or done.  Viet Nam Vets do not deny that Kerry had the right to oppose the war, and many stood shoulder to shoulder with him, and were vocal about it with him, tell me do you think of them as you do of him?

That's the point I've been trying to make...they SHOULDN'T be allowed.  LyricBoy said that only individuals should be allowed to contribute, you said it was a good idea, but how would you enforce it, I gave a couple of reasons how and why it COULD be enforced.  You're preaching to the choir here.


Sorry.  I guess I'm just to cynical.

I don’t think it is right for Kerry to play on his alleged heroics when he came back and demonstrated against the war along with Hanoi Jane Fonda. That was very demoralizing to troops who fought and served proudly.



I totally disagree.  It is never wrong for an US Citizen to speak his/her mind - NEVER.