oldsoul
Gold Member
Good point. There is a difference, to me at least. Maybe I am playing semantics, maybe not, I'm really not sure. either way, the difference, to me, is that your example is for fact based informative purposes. Requiring political ads, paid or not, is not fact based. It is informative, however, there is nothing stopping said ads from being total fabrications, opinions, or otherwise not fact based.I am watching food network right now. Just saw the “required weekly test” of the Emergency Alert System. We already force Direct TV to do it. We also force terrestrial radio to do it. This is not much different. It’s for a defined period every other year. Little if any injury.You seem to be missing my point. If the network is required to provide air time free of charge, then the network loses money. These are PRIVATE businesses that are for profit. It would be the same as if cell phone providers were required to provide a certain number of cell phone plans for the election free of cost. They simply pass the cost on to those who pay. That would be you. You therefore, indirectly, help to support a candidate that you may or may not agree with.An interesting idea. One which I am not completely opposed to, however, I am slow to endorse anything requiring private firms to do any particular thing, especially when it involves government and money. Now, you say it would be "free air time", that air time costs money. If the candidates don't pay for it, and the government doesn't pay for it, the stations/networks would have to pay for it. Even if that were only in lost advertisement revenue.I personally think that the State-Controlled airwaves should be made available free of charge to anyone with demonstrated support during the biannual elections for federal office. By that I mean that the radio and television stations that are licensed by the FCC should be required to run candidate-produced advertisements on a 1:1 ratio.
What I didn’t say was that there would be time limits; say from September 1 to Election day. This would be once every 2 years. And remember, they can buy whatever they want on top of what they get for free so it’s not as if the stations would be making nothing off of the election.
Additionally, it is FORCING a business to have political content, whether or not they wish to. It really goes back to the First Amendment, for me.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Emphasis added.
Maybe we can make Mexico pay the stations? Lol
That said, while I would still oppose it, if one were to argue that these ads should be paid for out of a general election fund, and disseminated equally amongst the various candidates in a given race, then I would be more willing to have a discussion about it. Maybe we could find some common ground there.