truthdig.com— Politics has become a game of the super rich, but the money they donate is significant only because of the way it is spent: On TV and radio advertising.
Feb 22, 2012View in Crawl 4
I understand that perfectly well, it's you that keep completely missing my point.
It doesn't matter what OTHER operating costs they might have. They are being given use of a resource - one that is the very foundation of their entire business - that belongs to us. Expecting them to pay for that resource is in no way incompatable with acknowleding or understanding that - as you keep repeating - they are businesses. WE own something they want to use and if we want to charge them for it, so be it. Any other operating expenses they might have are tangental to the discussion and are their problem to deal with.
Imagine they hired an electrician to come out and do some wiring at their studio. Your argument is equivalent to telling that electrician - "You can't make them PAY for the wiring!! They're a business! They have operating expenses!"
Neither the word "business" nor the presence of other operating expenses entitles them to have the taxpayers give them something for nothing. Expecting them to pay for what we supply them is no different from any of their other vendors and suppliers expecting to be paid for what they provide.
Think of all the good that could be done if campaign money was instead spent on charitable causes.
If politicians are willing to spend this much to get into power, think of how much more money and power they expect to take if they should happen to win. It's a simple matter of the economics of criminal behavior. They can get away with it because there is complacency, and because many people think taxes are not theft if a bit of that money goes into something they can feel good about.
"Too much money goes into political campaigns"
... because the government controls so much. Make the government smaller, and there will be less rent seeking interests trying to buy influence.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Not sure why you got dugg down here because as a liberal, I find that one of the best arguments for smaller government I've heard. Less government = less power = less need to influence = less money in politics.
That said, once the government has less power, that power must go somewhere. I can agree with your point so long as that power goes back to the people, and not to those who already have power (corporations, unions, wealthy, etc)
I don't think political ads are significantly worse than the information on your typical news station. Honestly, I think that they probably contain more information. And is it really that much better to have everything dictated by FIVE media conglomerates? At least there are SOME benevolent rich people out there
I don't trust the regulators who are trying to pass SOPA and ACTA and would be enforcing this bill, or the media companies that have completely failed in their civic duty to inform the populace, and haven't mentioned said bills.
The author whines about "too much money" and then says: "We don’t vote state by state in the presidential election, so why should we do so in primaries for a national party candidate?"
Can you imagine what it would cost to have to run a national campaign from the start? Only the extremely wealthy, or establishment pols with big money connections would be able to pull it off.
In our current system, a candidate with less money still has a chance to make a name in a few small inexpensive states i.e Iowa & New Hampshire. If he does well, then he can get a boost fundraising to go on to the larger more expensive states.
that is the point. if the airtime is free for all then the media will have no choice but to apportion the airtime EQUALLY lest their bias slap you in the face.
IE it REMOVES the money from the campaign and makes everyone equal. now they actually have to "EARN" the win. now a month IS honestly too short but I think 3-4 months would be more than sufficient.
they love the state by state because it allows the richer candidates or the ones with more access to wealth to focus and "win" states by shear mass of effort instead of earning it.
those airwaves are OURS. the functioning of this nation should never come at a profit. that INVITES corruption in extremes. part of the "PRICE" of getting exclusive access to OUR DAMNED AIRWAVES should be fair equal election advertising AND coverage.
You want to tell a BUSINESS that they have to give free equal airtime to political candidates.
Those stations PAY for their licenses and ALREADY have rules in place that say they have to offer political ads commercial spots at the LOWEST rate that has been paid all year.
For instance ... the local auto dealership pays $200 a commercial during 30 Rock when it's in repeats. The candidate pays $200 a commercial for 30 rock when it's NOT in repeats.
These businesses NEED to make a profit. You have no businesses telling them they must give away free to candidates what they make OTHER ADVERTISERS pay for.
They don't need to make a profit off of politics. There are many other things they can do that with and used to do that with. This is a recent phenomena. There is no need for it and it makes things worse.
I wouldn't say fascism. What you're fighting for is more like a perverted form of reverse-communism in which the means of production are seized from all the many individuals who own them and handed over to big business to profit from.
All that we're saying is - we're going to use SOME of them before giving you all the rest.
those freqs are OURS and yet we PRICE THEM SO HIGH that only the megarich can afford them.
you got a better idea?
The local business is losing that spot NO MATTER WHAT. either it will be BOUGHT OUT FROM UNDER THEM b y the superpacs OR it will be apportioned out from under them in fairness.
again you got a better idea?
yes they have rules. WE NUKED ALL THE RULES TO PREVENT ABUSE OF OUR ELECTION PROCESS.
they seemed to profit JUST FINE when equal coverage rules were in place.
all thats happened since they STRIPPED THOSE RULES is the dildo is being shoved further up our collective asses.
Hooray for equality. Democratic administrations get their Goldman Sachs treasury secretary, Republican administrations get their Goldman Sachs treasury secretary.
Alternative viewpoints, such as viewpoints in opposition to SOPA, not allowed, however.
"if the airtime is free for all then the media will have no choice but to apportion the airtime EQUALLY lest their bias slap you in the face"
...and who gets to choose and ration the time available to the 20 or 30 candidates who decide to run?
You need to also remember that there is much more to running a campaign than TV ads. You need a staff in every one of the states. Legal teams to fight petition challanges, and all sorts of expenses. Not every candidate will have their union minions providing "in-kind" contributions.
Be careful what you wish for.. A national campaign will only limit the opportunity to run to only the richest and most well connected candidates.
Because you want the same entity which monopolizes the airwaves, which thinks it has a right to censor the internet and has come up against resistance to these proposals, to censor content so that you can pretend you live in a fair and balanced world?
This is playing footsie and creating more problems on an ultimately disastrous ruling (Citizens United). That ruling should be handled, directly.
The real problem is there's a certain percentage of people who actually go for this ruling. The ones that's I've heard from have made no attempt to defend it, they just defiantly scream: "But UNIONS!"
Which is incredibly ironic, since such persons have otherwise said they want smaller government, but rulings like this only increase the problem. Incredibly so.
IMO, we have a fairly small window (it may already be too late) to deal with this. After that is an incredibly long downward grinding mill. Lots of finger pointing will happen on that trip, until everyone is at everyone. Like rats in a cage.
But at least we'll have the talking heads to inflame us further.
The idea of giving free airtime to candidates is nothing new. But far from being a panacea for equality and fairness, it's a recipe for the opposite. Government, not the station, would have to decide what's proper political speech, and bureaucrats would have to decide who gets their airtime. And since whatever president happens to be in power controls the FCC, expect his/her party to manipulate things to suit their will.
As to Citizens United, there has been a narrative building since the case was decided that unlimited money by corporations was going to unduly influence the elections. And although these entities do allow unlimited donations, the talking point that they've got no disclosure requirements is simply false.
Negative or attack ads are talked about every election and are a favorite canard of the media establishment. Almost every candidate and interest group uses them at some point in the election cycle, so why the special attention to the CU case and money? Because the money advantage now favors Republicans, that's why.
If the status quo is an insane unsustainable proposition, moderation to it makes even less sense. Rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic to shape the outcome of the inherently corrupting influence of the government is a tragedy and a comedy.
"its a CONCEPT. making it WORK if it can work is someone elses job."
Well unless the whole process can be presented in a way that makes sense, the concept is pretty much worthless.
How do you determine who is a genuine candidate with credentials and backing? Aren't those people, by whatever standard you come up with, people who got there, or could get there, by the same funding that backs campaign ads today?
Let's say an "approved candidate" has to have x number of petition signatures. Certainly anyone from Trump to Kim Kardashian has enough of a following for this to occur.
Likewise, the head of any union, church, or radical extremist group would have enough members to get enough signatures. Hell, Evil Umbrella Corp could have their employees sign signatures for their CEO.
Whatever criteria you come up with to filter out the "real" candidates, you'll still end up with not-real candidates getting free air-time and using that air-time the ways Super-Pacs do today.
I would probably start with a petition style process. Get enough signatures to "back you" and your eligible. Have a functioning campaign followers etc.. IE do you have everything any other valid candidate has except TV and radio ad money?
if yes then your in.
thats a start. of course in your world we would not have MOST Of what we have today since MOST of what we had started as vague concepts with no vetting of fleshing out.
HOW DARE them brothers make an airplane without a fully fleshed out plan that meets your approval.
No it's not. It's throwing bureaucracy at a problem and hoping it magically gets better, with fixes coming from just more bureaucracy.
If petitions and other vague qualifications are the "start" tell us, what's preventing any corporation from backing a shill candidate for the petition in order to just further their agenda?
How does a regular candidate compete for petition signatures in this environment?
"HOW DARE them brothers make an airplane without a fully fleshed out plan that meets your approval."
Huge difference. The Wright Brothers didn't involve me, or anyone else getting on their machine. The Wright Brothers actually *did* spend vast amounts of time fleshing out the design. They in fact had the answers...or at least enough of them to have confidence in the flight.
What you're suggesting is "hey let's try this" without really thinking things through, and without addressing the obvious flaws. When you do that, you very likely make a bad situation worse.
The better analogy would be the comical planes you see in the old time movies where the builders didn't think things through, and didn't have any answers, and just thought they'd toss some s**t together and hope they didn't kill anyone.
"DO not reply again that its a bad idea. REPLY WITH A BETTER ONE.
otherwise your just part of the problem."
Pointing out that it's a bad idea doesn't make me a part of the problem any more than pointing out one of those silly machines can't fly. It helps because you aren't wasting time or the risks associated in the failure.
"making it so they "CAN NOT BUY" ads but can only have their apportioned amount of ads DOES accomplish this partially."
The problem with this is that it's simply not possible to both allow free speech, and restrict campaign funding in a meaningful way.
Let's say we gave Romney, Santorum, Gingrich, etc al, the same amount of money to spend however they wanted. We'd give Obama the same amount. We'd forget about how someone got to be a Romney, Santorum, ... or an Obama, and just pretend that somehow magically that happens in a fair way in the future.
Ok, well then how exactly do you prevent people, organizations, or corporations from campaigning for them? And how could you possibly draw the line?
If I say Santorum is an evil person and you shouldn't vote for him, that's just free speech from MrEdofCourse. No big deal, right? Ok, what if I have 10,000 followers on FaceBook? What if I have millions on Twitter? What if I have a Blog with millions of subscribers? What if I have a Zine? A paper? What if I have a TV show? What if I'm Murdoch with a vast multimedia network all promoting or smearing a candidate? Not allowing a candidate to buy ads does nothing to address any of this and just makes pressure for the under-handed stuff to occur more.
It's impossible to draw the line with any entity and define it on one side as free speech (which we appreciate as a good thing and should be protected), and on the other side as evil campaigning.
The better plan?
Give up.
The situation we're in now is in part because of poorly thought out plans to regulate campaign finance. Do away with that and let the money go ahead and go directly to the candidates for candidate approved campaigns. Require auditing and full disclosure.
The biggest shifts in the primaries to date, and in elections past, have been the result of either candidates screwing up (being exposed) or by reactions to the numerous debates. There appears to be a huge and growing market for debates, so I don't see this being a problem.
You and I have a different idea of what the "problem" is.
my problem is that ANY CANDIDATE worthy of political positions has a low probably of even getting "on the board" so to speak.
ie if your not "in the pocket" of an interest or agenda you pretty much "off the board"
apportionment removes some of this "power" of restriction.
it does NOT interfere with free speech ANY MORE than a television station saying "no thanks" we don't want to run your ad.
AGAIN I am not saying restrict what they SAY in the ad but only that they all get an apportioned amount of time and they may not "buy more" (directly or via a pac)
you want to TRULY fix the problem? start by eliminating illegal "personhood" for corporations. then most of your rights issues go "poof" as they should.
"You and I have a different idea of what the "problem" is."
I agree to disagree :) and definitely respect where you're coming from.
"AGAIN I am not saying restrict what they SAY in the ad but only that they all get an apportioned amount of time and they may not "buy more" (directly or via a pac)"
This is where I have a problem. Take a candidate like Obama. He may want to place an ad on every channel to maximize his reach. This may not be the best strategy, but as long as he's within his apportionment in your plan, he'd be free to do so. So suppose he does have this, and he gets some ads on say the Fox News Channel. And after that, Fox News tells him, "that's it, you've blown your wad with us, now we'd love to sell you more ad time, but rules are rules."
And right after that, Fox News resumes normal 24/7 programming which is pretty much identical in content to a super pac that's anti-Obama.
Also, within your plan, the DNC would have every incentive to run as many candidates as possible in the primary against Obama. Not that any would get a chance to come close to the nomination, but put up say 10-20 primary candidates to get some of that sweet apportionment time to use against the GOP field.
My point here is that since McCain-Fiengold, the only real changes we've seen in practical terms when it comes to finance reform is that the games they play just get sillier. The money still flows.
"you want to TRULY fix the problem? start by eliminating illegal "personhood" for corporations. then most of your rights issues go "poof" as they should."
That sounds great, but how do you draw the line between what a super pac does, and a media empire like News Corp does?
It gets a lot more fuzzier than that. How can any media company be allowed to editorialize and offer any opinion or analysis (NYT, WSJ, Maddow, Limbaugh, even Stewart and Colbert) without also allowing other media companies, or the corporate parents of media companies being allowed to do the same thing?
How is "Evil Corporation" buying 30 seconds, 30 minutes, or the entire network to voice their opinion something that you can restrict while allowing the "Good News Corporation" the freedom of speech and expression in order to bring us the news?
My point here is that the Supreme Court made a decision that we feel bad about (I do). But logically, it makes sense unless you're willing to place serious restrictions on freedom of speech and freedom of the press just to put up minor and easy to avoid barriers to campaign finance.
like I said super pacs would be PART OF the apportionment. so if obama blew his wad none of the pacs are ALLOWED to advertise anything since obama (positive or negative) would have use his apportioned time.
they would not be permitted to "pay" for more time. so all ads would have to be "approved" by the candidate. no more third party ads.
I never agree to disagree. your problem is you have a logic fail. you keep saying free speech and free press and nothing I would see done would infringe EITHER of them.
"I never agree to disagree. your problem is you have a logic fail. you keep saying free speech and free press and nothing I would see done would infringe EITHER of them."
You missed a major point of my previous comment. You might want to read it again.
"they would not be permitted to "pay" for more time. so all ads would have to be "approved" by the candidate. no more third party ads."
Right, no more 3rd party ads no more pacs... nothing.
BUT...
"Welcome to Fox & Friends, this morning's show is all about irrationally bashing Obama in hopes that you will not only not vote for him, but put up signs for Santorum and convince your neighbors to do the same!"
What's the point in banning what we think of as a conventional 30 second ad spot, when News Corp is allowed to do this 24/7 under the name of freedom of the press?
And that's just talking about conventional old time television. Things get a lot more complicated with thousands of video channels, blogs, podcasts, and other modern channels of communication.
If you ban super pacs, and limit direct campaign ad buys by apportionment, and still allow freedom of the press, guess what businesses we can expect Halliburton, ExxonMobile, and Monsanto to buy?
GE and Comcast jointly own NBC. How do you regulate any of the NBC news shows from expressing political opinions that may favor one candidate or another on issues affecting GE or Comcast without restricting freedom of speech or freedom of the press?
Also, you never answered this, but at what point does individual personal speech even become a 3rd party ad?
I like Obama, and think you should vote for him. Again, that's just me, and I'm lucky if I even have you still as an audience of 1. But what happens when I tweet with 1,000 followers? 10,000 followers? 1 million or more? What if it's not just me, but a network of people where we agree to spread the same word through various channels, eventually reaching millions? What happens when I create a YouTube video and it gets more views than an ad on ABC would?
I know you don't have all the answers, but with so many holes, I think you have no answer at all.
I give up. instead of trying to figure out a solution all you can do is poke holes and invent specific scenario's where the "vague" concept does not work.
How about a solution instead of whining it won't work?
"How about a solution instead of whining it won't work?"
Now I'm sure you've just been making the same argument over and over without reading anything I've actually written or at least thinking about the points. I proposed a solution. You you may not like it, but it's better than your solution.
I'm not "inventing specific scenarios" in order to whine about what you propose. I'm pointing out that unless you can plug those holes in what you propose, your solution only makes things worse. Those "scenarios" are now, and have been for some time, actual realities. It's not like News Corp "may" exist or GE/Comcast "may" buy a media empire. They do today, and yield far more power than any super pac (and so do my other examples).
Try actually answering some of my questions and you'll see your solution sucks.
The bottom line of your solution is that the more you try to plug those holes, the more you end up with additional costs to the taxpayer, additional restrictions to politicians who want to play fair, and more advantages to the corporate backed politicians who can always find loopholes.
I'm not whining here, I'm pointing to history. Heck, recent history shows this very clearly. You should take a close look cat McCain-Feingold and the positive intention with negative consequences that got us where we are today.
FTA:
"The Federal Communications Commission should forbid television broadcasters from charging for campaign ads,"
so television stations are supposed to run campaign ads for free, instead of running other ads that will bring in revenue? and if candidates can't pay to get their ads run, who is going to be ensuring that all candidates get fair allotments of time? the candidate who promises the most to the media will get a disproportionate amount of advertising time. this proposal takes the money out and replaces it with a proxy.
also FTA:
"We don’t vote state by state in the presidential election, so why should we do so in primaries for a national party candidate?"
because the democratic party and republican party are private entities. they can elect their nominee however they see fit. if they want to randomly draw straws to determine the party nominee, or pick the winner with a 1 mile sprint, that is within their rights. the parties will run their primary process as they see fit, and they see a long primary season (which attracts attention for their candidates) as a good thing.
"The Federal Communications Commission should forbid television broadcasters from charging for campaign ads..."
Yeah, that's actually TAKING from broadcasters and TV stations and making them give away their air time which would otherwise be sold. TV stations, broadcasters, etc ... are businesses, too.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
"Like the water or the air, the spectrum over which broadcasters transmit their wares is a finite resource that everyone depends on, and which needs to be regulated by government to prevent chaos and hoarding. But in licensing some corporations to dominate the airwaves, Congress inevitably excluded others. I can’t start a radio broadcast from my home because it would interfere with licensed stations. Because choosing some voices over others is inherently unfair, Congress in the Radio Act of 1927 and the Communications Act of 1934 established a general requirement that broadcasters act in the “public interest, convenience and necessity.” This conception of broadcasters as public trustees has been repeatedly upheld by the Supreme Court."
Short version - those businesses are being GIVEN exclusive use of a publicly owned resource. And, yes, there is the expectation that they GIVE something back.
IMHO the author doesn't even make the case strongly enough. It isn't just the scarcity of the broadcast spectrum that's the issue. Legally, any of us that own property own the airspace ABOVE that property as well. In order to make certain types of businesses even possible (air travel, TV & radio), those corporations are GIVEN easements allowing them to fly their planes or broadcast their signals through OUR property. We individual land owners don't get a choice. It's TAKEN from us and GIVEN to big business. So, again - yes, we can expect them to give back.
Or, if they don't like that, we could eliminate the automatic easements. Keep in mind, radio and TV broadcast isn't directional. They'd have to negotiate deals with every. single. individual. landowner in their broadcast area. If even ONE said no, they wouldn't be allowed to broadcast at all.
You'd essentially be saying, "You'll reserve x amount of your commercial time for candidates free of charge."
Yes. I think you're missing my point.
What I'm saying is - "You'll PAY US for the use of what belongs to US . . . by reserving x amount of your commercial time for candidates free of charge."Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
but ever since our corrupt government realized they could PROFIT from selling the bandwidth what we have gotten is ONLY THE MEGA RICH can afford a "free press"
the rest of us are "banned" by lack of funds and lack of more bandwidth.
Look at the CRAP with the digital switch over.
No digital vcr. no digital dvr no digital DVD-r
no portable digital (none of them can be used while moving EVEN WALKING and 100% of the signal goes POOF)
No digital audio portable receivers.
all the digital switch did was DESTROY TV for low income families who now MUST use a "box" to get TV even from cable and of course they took the opportunity to NOT switch to digital. instead they switch to PROPRIETARY digital. BREAKING all "unapproved" corporate DVR's in the process.
oh and 20 BILLION for the government. Where did that money go BTW ?
and now there is a new bill going through the grinder that will make it so ANY BANDWIDTH in the future that is proposed for "free" use (such as WIFI was) would have to FIRST be offered for purchase and would only be opened up to the free market IF NO ONE BUYS IT.
s**t they will buy it just to "have" it and keep out free competition.
. . . and from your bury-and-run I'll go ahead and conclude that you're another corpratist who thinks that "business" should be synonymous with "entitled to free handouts from the taxpayers."Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
FTA: "Ari Berman has shown that about four-fifths of the money raised by super PACs in 2011 for the Republican primary contests was donated by only 196 individuals..."
worth mentioning, this is the first primary process since citizens united, and for all intents and purposes there is only a republican primary this year.
just wait until we see a democratic primary in the lead up to 2016 and see if their super pacs have significantly different numbers or not.
reaper, while we won't see SuperPACs in a democratic primary (because there is none), we will see SuperPACs this fall in the election - both sides. I do not think this bodes well for any of us who do not have the $$ to play in the SuperPacs, no matter your political affiliation
Unemployment is coming down economy is improving, the DOW hit 13,000 for the first time since 2008.
However, the Oil Cartel is putting the brakes on the economic recovery as a way of pay back to Obama for Keystone XL pipeline and not giving immunity in the Gulf of Mexico.
yeah if only it were the oil cartel. instead its our own wall street putting the screws to our economy via speculation.
be mad. thats good. but it helps to be mad at the RIGHT PEOPLE.
Be mad at GM for killing the electric car which would eliminate our need for foreign oil. Be MAD at the US government for helping them kill it via the $100k hummer tax credit.
BE MAD that patents are being used to suppress tech instead of fostering innovation.
BE MAD that the gov gives subsidies to what is profitable to THEM instead of what is profitable to US.
I could care less about OPEC. its THEIR f**kING OIL they can and should price it any damned way they wish.
I don't have a problem with big oil.
I have a problem with OUR CORPORATIONS AND OUR GOVERNMENT HELPING THEM for their own greedy unrelated reasons. (unrelated to oil specifically)
if I had my say the patent on the E95 NIMH's would be nullified.
Major Automakers would have 6 months to start rolling out electric cars for under $14k that can go 100miles on a charge using a standardized planform across all brands (if they want to make others great go for it) and mass production must be going within a year
OR THEY ARE NO LONGER WELCOME TO DO BUSINESS IN THIS COUNTRY.
this would apply to US AND Foreign Auto Makers.
There. FIXED your f**king oil problem. I just made OPEC irrelevant.
and it won't cost taxpayers a penny.
If foreign companies don't work toward that objective WE KICK THEM OUT by raising tarriff's so high they go bankrupt selling cars here.
if DOMESTIC major makers refuse same deal we TAX THEM into non existence.
when they go out of business we buy em up cheap and PUT people in charge who are willing to DO AS THEY ARE TOLD.
I am tired of taking it up the ass from these auto makers and my government.
when the f**k are you people going to wake up?
or are you waiting for the new DILDO called hydrogen to be shoved up your ass?
Oil Cartel, Wall Street's Cannibal Capitalism (taught at Harvard)
How would you think Wall Street would allow an American policy to force other markets like China to force them to open up their market or else when THEY where the ones who came out with this great 6 markets global economy.
Also, Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the Earth and the entire universe. It is not only is the fuel for rockets but it is also the fuel of the stars.
The technology to separate water molecules for instance already exist but it takes the size of a large bus.
Remember when the Air Force first airborne laser was mounted on a 747? the second generation fit on an C130 a plane 1/3 the size of a jumbo.
Leave it to American ingenuity, leave it to Silicone Valley talent and within a decade hydrogen power locomotives and ships will set sail right before Hydrogen carsComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe.
it also DOES NOT EXIST ON EARTH. it has to be MADE because it DOES NOT EXIST IN ITS PURE FORM ON EARTH. only as a combination in an molecule such as water.
OR hey what is the most COMMON and CHEAP source of hydrogen today. Oh yeah PETROLEUM. of course.
of course what IS a hydrogen fuel cell car? its an ELECTRIC CAR where the "consumer friendly battery" has been removed and the "corporate friendly" fuel cell has been installed in its place.
OH wait were you actually DELUSIONAL ENOUGH to think you would be PERMITTED to "make and store" your own hydrogen at home even if the multi 10's of thousands of dollars worth of equipment you would NEED to do it became available as a price any normal mortal could afford? HELL NO.
The technology to "electrolyze" water into oxygen and hydrogen fits in your HAND marcglez
and its VERY SIMPLE CHEAP equipment. all you need is electricity and a catalyst. VERY CHEAP.
the problem is it takes a simply SICK amount of POWER TO DO IT.
Hydrogen MAKES SENSE when your a freaking ROCKET SHIP. I BUILD rockets. I know all about that aspect.
it makes NO SENSE for cars.
and its USELESS for going to the stars unless you make it as you go (so far we have NO CONTAINER that can hold the stuff long term) so great for a "boost" into space HORRIBLE for anything else.
its energy density is just too low and it leaks through ANYTHING. a solid steel container is little better than a "screen door" to hydrogen.
its SO BAD they have specialized robots to scan the outside surface of H2 storage tanks so find the "leaks" where streams of hydrogen leak RIGHT THROUGH THE SIDE OF THE TANK. if they were to ignite (nearly invisible flame at that scale) and weaken the tank. well man that would suck.
so rest assured IF anyone ever invents a cheap way for someone not to MAKE h2 but to STORE IT the very next day it will be rendered ILLEGAL. no one wants a neighbor with a tank of hydrogen in the garage. (even if its not really all that dangerous)
both HYDROGEN and BATTERIES will use power from the GRID the SAME grid so we can ignore GRID backwards efficiencies since they are the same for both.
GRID to wheels efficiency of hydrogen is 24%
GRID to wheels efficiency of batteries is 89% upwards of 95% for good NIMHS.
its a black and white comparison. hydrogen SUCKS.
they want hydrogen because it does TWO THINGS.
#1 they are complicated expensive to maintain vehicles READ high profit. (while battery electrics are INSANELY SIMPLE and virtually maintenance free ie LOWER PROFIT)
#2 they retain CONTROL OF THE FUEL which means THEY stay in charge.
with Batteries SOME and I do mean a LOT of control shifts back where it belongs. TO THE PEOPLE.
you could put $2k or $3k ($500 if nano solar gets off their asses) of solar panels on your roof and use a net overall ZERO watts from the grid for your electric car.
IE your fuel costs you NOTHING.
They can build a $14k four door midsize family sedan economy car with a 25-30 year lifespan $4500 battery pack (included in that $14k price tag) that will do 100 miles to a charge (IE enough for 90% of the nation!!)
that is not cost. that is FULL RETAIL with NO SUBSIDIES OR TAX BREAKS.
add in the $7500 government credit and the car is FREE over what your likely paying now.
IE the monthly payment will be LESS THAN most of us are paying each month in "gasoline" now.
and it would add on average $150-$200 to your electric bill. PER YEAR.
Run an electric HEATER for 1 month and you just used more power than your electric car (nimh powered lithium takes more power) will use in an entire year!
YES it really is that good it really is that efficient and all of this tech is OFF THE SHELF except for the battery which GM insured you could not have.
if compelled they could be cranking these out inside 6 months to a year TOPS.
they simple REFUSE TOO.
The auto makers don't like long lasting CHEAP low maintenance cars.
Government does not like fuel they can't control and tax and hold over its citizens heads.
The oil companies don't even factor into this equation.
if we wholesale switch to an EV infrastructure for our cars and trucks not only would we save TRILLIONS of dollars and MASSIVELY REINVIGORATE THE ECONOMY but we could 100% eliminate all foreign oil needs. our DOMESTIC production would be more than sufficient for our needs.
we could then tell big oil to go f**k themselves and lube up with their OIL that we don't need anymore.
just the savings in not having to MEDDLE in the middle east and everywhere else in the world with the military COULD PAY for the switch over.
but that means more profit and liberty for THE AVERAGE PERSON and a lot less profit and CONTROL by the few
which is why they REFUSE to do it and why they went to great lengths to KILL IT DEAD.
"Would the Florida electoral contest, for instance, have yielded more light and less heat if each candidate had been apportioned airtime based on an equitable formula?"
How do you make an "equitable formula" that isn't easily gamed to the benefit of incumbents and those with substantial existing name recognition? The most equitable is to give everyone equal time, but then established politicians will just have their supporters enter as trojan horse candidates and dilute the air time to next to nothing.
There isn't an easy answer to this, removing money from the equation doesn't fix the problem, it just presents different problems.
I'm sure incumbents and those candidates who already have significant name recognition would love this. When you limit the amount of exposure possible you make it harder for new voices to be heard.
As I said before...you might as well tell local hardware stores that they have to provide free pickets and printing companies that they have to provide free signs.
"The Federal Communications Commission should forbid television broadcasters from charging for campaign ads"
And airlines should provide free private jets, hotels should provide free suites and conference rooms, tailors should provide free suits, transportation groups should provide free buses, radio stations, print...
I agree that the campaign financing has gotten out of control - this is a pretty ridiculous solution, though.
Felis catus is your taxonomic nomenclature,
An endothermic quadruped, carnivorous by nature;
Your visual, olfactory, and auditory senses
Contribute to your hunting skills and natural defenses.
I find myself intrigued by your subvocal oscillations,
A singular development of cat communications
That obviates your basic hedonistic predilection
For a rhythmic stroking of your fur to demonstrate affection.
A tail is quite essential for your acrobatic talents;
You would not be so agile if you lacked its counterbalance.
And when not being utilized to aid in locomotion,
It often serves to illustrate the state of your emotion.
O Spot, the complex levels of behavior you display
Connote a fairly well-developed cognitive array.
And though you are not sentient, Spot, and do not comprehend,
I nonetheless consider you a true and valued friend.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
lets be honest - how much information do you get out of a 30 second ad - often time there is only enough time to spout a possible dark cloud over a candidate and proclaim - My name is so and so and I approve this message.... So even if it was free it wouldn't stop the negative ads - we probably would have more. but at least if it is controlled it would be a lesser amount of time. Besides, try taking all that cash out of the TV companies and you will end up... dead....
marcglezFeb 22, 2012
Give the candidates free air time in exchange for what? Integrity? Then none of them would get any air time. They all are circumstantial layers!
Ouzel7Feb 23, 2012
You really can't give them free air time. Commercials pay for the operating costs of TV, radio stations etc....
It's akin to telling hardware stores they have to provide free pickets and printing shops have to provide free signs.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
bookantFeb 23, 2012
Only if hardware stores were being given their merchandise "free" from the taxpayers.
Ouzel7Feb 23, 2012
It's NOT free. I don't understand why you don't understand. Your local TV station has operating costs.
bookantFeb 23, 2012
I understand that perfectly well, it's you that keep completely missing my point.
It doesn't matter what OTHER operating costs they might have. They are being given use of a resource - one that is the very foundation of their entire business - that belongs to us. Expecting them to pay for that resource is in no way incompatable with acknowleding or understanding that - as you keep repeating - they are businesses. WE own something they want to use and if we want to charge them for it, so be it. Any other operating expenses they might have are tangental to the discussion and are their problem to deal with.
Imagine they hired an electrician to come out and do some wiring at their studio. Your argument is equivalent to telling that electrician - "You can't make them PAY for the wiring!! They're a business! They have operating expenses!"
Neither the word "business" nor the presence of other operating expenses entitles them to have the taxpayers give them something for nothing. Expecting them to pay for what we supply them is no different from any of their other vendors and suppliers expecting to be paid for what they provide.
Ouzel7Feb 24, 2012
Don't they already pay for the use of the airwaves?
It's not free.
I'm sorry, you just don't understand. They are required to provide a certain amount of some programming.
They charge non-profits substantially reduced rates for ad time.
wdrummondFeb 22, 2012
Too much money goes into political campaigns
peppermintpigFeb 22, 2012
Think of all the good that could be done if campaign money was instead spent on charitable causes.
If politicians are willing to spend this much to get into power, think of how much more money and power they expect to take if they should happen to win. It's a simple matter of the economics of criminal behavior. They can get away with it because there is complacency, and because many people think taxes are not theft if a bit of that money goes into something they can feel good about.
Ouzel7Feb 22, 2012
"Think of all the good that could be done if campaign money was instead spent on charitable causes."
This is sooooo worth considering. Frankly, political ads eventually wind up making us all annoyed because of the constant negativity.
icwydFeb 22, 2012
Tax them 100% then pay the national debt.
Ouzel7Feb 22, 2012
Tax who?
ErikHaFeb 23, 2012
I think he meant politicians. I know the context clues didn't just jump right out and slap you, but that is what English class is for.
fertilebastardFeb 22, 2012
"Too much money goes into political campaigns"
... because the government controls so much. Make the government smaller, and there will be less rent seeking interests trying to buy influence.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
bcarl314Feb 23, 2012
Not sure why you got dugg down here because as a liberal, I find that one of the best arguments for smaller government I've heard. Less government = less power = less need to influence = less money in politics.
That said, once the government has less power, that power must go somewhere. I can agree with your point so long as that power goes back to the people, and not to those who already have power (corporations, unions, wealthy, etc)
peppermintpigFeb 23, 2012
It takes time to correct for thousands of years of government distortion.
Liberty requires freedom of consent. Must work towards this.
jivatmanxFeb 22, 2012
I don't think political ads are significantly worse than the information on your typical news station. Honestly, I think that they probably contain more information. And is it really that much better to have everything dictated by FIVE media conglomerates? At least there are SOME benevolent rich people out there
I don't trust the regulators who are trying to pass SOPA and ACTA and would be enforcing this bill, or the media companies that have completely failed in their civic duty to inform the populace, and haven't mentioned said bills.
fertilebastardFeb 22, 2012
The author whines about "too much money" and then says: "We don’t vote state by state in the presidential election, so why should we do so in primaries for a national party candidate?"
Can you imagine what it would cost to have to run a national campaign from the start? Only the extremely wealthy, or establishment pols with big money connections would be able to pull it off.
In our current system, a candidate with less money still has a chance to make a name in a few small inexpensive states i.e Iowa & New Hampshire. If he does well, then he can get a boost fundraising to go on to the larger more expensive states.
nerysFeb 22, 2012
that is the point. if the airtime is free for all then the media will have no choice but to apportion the airtime EQUALLY lest their bias slap you in the face.
IE it REMOVES the money from the campaign and makes everyone equal. now they actually have to "EARN" the win. now a month IS honestly too short but I think 3-4 months would be more than sufficient.
they love the state by state because it allows the richer candidates or the ones with more access to wealth to focus and "win" states by shear mass of effort instead of earning it.
Ouzel7Feb 23, 2012
"if the airtime is free for all"
Airtime is not free. That local restaurant that shows the commercial during your evening news PAYS for the air time.
The income from those ads pays for the station to run.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
nerysFeb 23, 2012
those airwaves are OURS. the functioning of this nation should never come at a profit. that INVITES corruption in extremes. part of the "PRICE" of getting exclusive access to OUR DAMNED AIRWAVES should be fair equal election advertising AND coverage.
Ouzel7Feb 23, 2012
Well... welcome to fascism.
You want to tell a BUSINESS that they have to give free equal airtime to political candidates.
Those stations PAY for their licenses and ALREADY have rules in place that say they have to offer political ads commercial spots at the LOWEST rate that has been paid all year.
For instance ... the local auto dealership pays $200 a commercial during 30 Rock when it's in repeats. The candidate pays $200 a commercial for 30 rock when it's NOT in repeats.
These businesses NEED to make a profit. You have no businesses telling them they must give away free to candidates what they make OTHER ADVERTISERS pay for.
icwydFeb 23, 2012
They don't need to make a profit off of politics. There are many other things they can do that with and used to do that with. This is a recent phenomena. There is no need for it and it makes things worse.
Ouzel7Feb 23, 2012
They are selling ads at a cheaper rate than they would otherwise.
bookantFeb 23, 2012
"Well... welcome to fascism."
I wouldn't say fascism. What you're fighting for is more like a perverted form of reverse-communism in which the means of production are seized from all the many individuals who own them and handed over to big business to profit from.
All that we're saying is - we're going to use SOME of them before giving you all the rest.
nerysFeb 23, 2012
those freqs are OURS and yet we PRICE THEM SO HIGH that only the megarich can afford them.
you got a better idea?
The local business is losing that spot NO MATTER WHAT. either it will be BOUGHT OUT FROM UNDER THEM b y the superpacs OR it will be apportioned out from under them in fairness.
again you got a better idea?
yes they have rules. WE NUKED ALL THE RULES TO PREVENT ABUSE OF OUR ELECTION PROCESS.
they seemed to profit JUST FINE when equal coverage rules were in place.
all thats happened since they STRIPPED THOSE RULES is the dildo is being shoved further up our collective asses.
jivatmanxFeb 23, 2012
Republicans get equal airtime with Democrats:
Hooray for equality. Democratic administrations get their Goldman Sachs treasury secretary, Republican administrations get their Goldman Sachs treasury secretary.
Alternative viewpoints, such as viewpoints in opposition to SOPA, not allowed, however.
fertilebastardFeb 23, 2012
"if the airtime is free for all then the media will have no choice but to apportion the airtime EQUALLY lest their bias slap you in the face"
...and who gets to choose and ration the time available to the 20 or 30 candidates who decide to run?
You need to also remember that there is much more to running a campaign than TV ads. You need a staff in every one of the states. Legal teams to fight petition challanges, and all sorts of expenses. Not every candidate will have their union minions providing "in-kind" contributions.
Be careful what you wish for.. A national campaign will only limit the opportunity to run to only the richest and most well connected candidates.
nerysFeb 23, 2012
so like we have now? how is what you describe not what we ALREADY HAVE NOW ?
peppermintpigFeb 22, 2012
Because you want the same entity which monopolizes the airwaves, which thinks it has a right to censor the internet and has come up against resistance to these proposals, to censor content so that you can pretend you live in a fair and balanced world?
rockyoumonkeysFeb 22, 2012
Thinking you don't really know how the FCC works.
icwydFeb 22, 2012
We need to get rid of the monopolies. Too big is just too big.
peppermintpigFeb 23, 2012
The first monopoly is the one on force, under which the FCC was justified.
scabnabbitFeb 22, 2012
This is playing footsie and creating more problems on an ultimately disastrous ruling (Citizens United). That ruling should be handled, directly.
The real problem is there's a certain percentage of people who actually go for this ruling. The ones that's I've heard from have made no attempt to defend it, they just defiantly scream: "But UNIONS!"
Which is incredibly ironic, since such persons have otherwise said they want smaller government, but rulings like this only increase the problem. Incredibly so.
IMO, we have a fairly small window (it may already be too late) to deal with this. After that is an incredibly long downward grinding mill. Lots of finger pointing will happen on that trip, until everyone is at everyone. Like rats in a cage.
But at least we'll have the talking heads to inflame us further.
atomheartmotherFeb 22, 2012
The idea of giving free airtime to candidates is nothing new. But far from being a panacea for equality and fairness, it's a recipe for the opposite. Government, not the station, would have to decide what's proper political speech, and bureaucrats would have to decide who gets their airtime. And since whatever president happens to be in power controls the FCC, expect his/her party to manipulate things to suit their will.
As to Citizens United, there has been a narrative building since the case was decided that unlimited money by corporations was going to unduly influence the elections. And although these entities do allow unlimited donations, the talking point that they've got no disclosure requirements is simply false.
Negative or attack ads are talked about every election and are a favorite canard of the media establishment. Almost every candidate and interest group uses them at some point in the election cycle, so why the special attention to the CU case and money? Because the money advantage now favors Republicans, that's why.
peppermintpigFeb 22, 2012
If the status quo is an insane unsustainable proposition, moderation to it makes even less sense. Rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic to shape the outcome of the inherently corrupting influence of the government is a tragedy and a comedy.
nerysFeb 22, 2012
No the regulation would be an apportionment of time. what you DO with that time is up to you negative add positive ad whatever.
but the time would be apportioned equally. so no one would have an unfair financial bonus over the others.
mredofcourseFeb 22, 2012
Cool, so under that plan I would "equally" get the same amount of time as Romney, Gingrich and Santorum?
nerysFeb 23, 2012
if you were a genuine candidate with the credentials and backing? yes.
what? did you think I could vet out the entire process in a post on digg? its a CONCEPT. making it WORK if it can work is someone elses job.
nerysFeb 23, 2012
if you were a genuine candidate with the credentials and backing? yes.
what? did you think I could vet out the entire process in a post on digg? its a CONCEPT. making it WORK if it can work is someone elses job.
mredofcourseFeb 23, 2012
"its a CONCEPT. making it WORK if it can work is someone elses job."
Well unless the whole process can be presented in a way that makes sense, the concept is pretty much worthless.
How do you determine who is a genuine candidate with credentials and backing? Aren't those people, by whatever standard you come up with, people who got there, or could get there, by the same funding that backs campaign ads today?
Let's say an "approved candidate" has to have x number of petition signatures. Certainly anyone from Trump to Kim Kardashian has enough of a following for this to occur.
Likewise, the head of any union, church, or radical extremist group would have enough members to get enough signatures. Hell, Evil Umbrella Corp could have their employees sign signatures for their CEO.
Whatever criteria you come up with to filter out the "real" candidates, you'll still end up with not-real candidates getting free air-time and using that air-time the ways Super-Pacs do today.
nerysFeb 23, 2012
I would probably start with a petition style process. Get enough signatures to "back you" and your eligible. Have a functioning campaign followers etc.. IE do you have everything any other valid candidate has except TV and radio ad money?
if yes then your in.
thats a start. of course in your world we would not have MOST Of what we have today since MOST of what we had started as vague concepts with no vetting of fleshing out.
HOW DARE them brothers make an airplane without a fully fleshed out plan that meets your approval.
mredofcourseFeb 23, 2012
"thats a start."
No it's not. It's throwing bureaucracy at a problem and hoping it magically gets better, with fixes coming from just more bureaucracy.
If petitions and other vague qualifications are the "start" tell us, what's preventing any corporation from backing a shill candidate for the petition in order to just further their agenda?
How does a regular candidate compete for petition signatures in this environment?
"HOW DARE them brothers make an airplane without a fully fleshed out plan that meets your approval."
Huge difference. The Wright Brothers didn't involve me, or anyone else getting on their machine. The Wright Brothers actually *did* spend vast amounts of time fleshing out the design. They in fact had the answers...or at least enough of them to have confidence in the flight.
What you're suggesting is "hey let's try this" without really thinking things through, and without addressing the obvious flaws. When you do that, you very likely make a bad situation worse.
The better analogy would be the comical planes you see in the old time movies where the builders didn't think things through, and didn't have any answers, and just thought they'd toss some s**t together and hope they didn't kill anyone.
nerysFeb 23, 2012
I know money corrupts. I know the only real solution is to REMOVE THE MONEY from the equation.
making it so they "CAN NOT BUY" ads but can only have their apportioned amount of ads DOES accomplish this partially.
it removes a massive amount of money from the system AND it removes a massive amount of "media bias incentive" from the equation.
is it perfect? of course not but its a start. GO WITH IT. how would you make it better.?
DO not reply again that its a bad idea. REPLY WITH A BETTER ONE.
otherwise your just part of the problem.
mredofcourseFeb 23, 2012
"DO not reply again that its a bad idea. REPLY WITH A BETTER ONE.
otherwise your just part of the problem."
Pointing out that it's a bad idea doesn't make me a part of the problem any more than pointing out one of those silly machines can't fly. It helps because you aren't wasting time or the risks associated in the failure.
"making it so they "CAN NOT BUY" ads but can only have their apportioned amount of ads DOES accomplish this partially."
The problem with this is that it's simply not possible to both allow free speech, and restrict campaign funding in a meaningful way.
Let's say we gave Romney, Santorum, Gingrich, etc al, the same amount of money to spend however they wanted. We'd give Obama the same amount. We'd forget about how someone got to be a Romney, Santorum, ... or an Obama, and just pretend that somehow magically that happens in a fair way in the future.
Ok, well then how exactly do you prevent people, organizations, or corporations from campaigning for them? And how could you possibly draw the line?
If I say Santorum is an evil person and you shouldn't vote for him, that's just free speech from MrEdofCourse. No big deal, right? Ok, what if I have 10,000 followers on FaceBook? What if I have millions on Twitter? What if I have a Blog with millions of subscribers? What if I have a Zine? A paper? What if I have a TV show? What if I'm Murdoch with a vast multimedia network all promoting or smearing a candidate? Not allowing a candidate to buy ads does nothing to address any of this and just makes pressure for the under-handed stuff to occur more.
It's impossible to draw the line with any entity and define it on one side as free speech (which we appreciate as a good thing and should be protected), and on the other side as evil campaigning.
The better plan?
Give up.
The situation we're in now is in part because of poorly thought out plans to regulate campaign finance. Do away with that and let the money go ahead and go directly to the candidates for candidate approved campaigns. Require auditing and full disclosure.
The biggest shifts in the primaries to date, and in elections past, have been the result of either candidates screwing up (being exposed) or by reactions to the numerous debates. There appears to be a huge and growing market for debates, so I don't see this being a problem.
nerysFeb 23, 2012
You and I have a different idea of what the "problem" is.
my problem is that ANY CANDIDATE worthy of political positions has a low probably of even getting "on the board" so to speak.
ie if your not "in the pocket" of an interest or agenda you pretty much "off the board"
apportionment removes some of this "power" of restriction.
it does NOT interfere with free speech ANY MORE than a television station saying "no thanks" we don't want to run your ad.
AGAIN I am not saying restrict what they SAY in the ad but only that they all get an apportioned amount of time and they may not "buy more" (directly or via a pac)
you want to TRULY fix the problem? start by eliminating illegal "personhood" for corporations. then most of your rights issues go "poof" as they should.
mredofcourseFeb 23, 2012
"You and I have a different idea of what the "problem" is."
I agree to disagree :) and definitely respect where you're coming from.
"AGAIN I am not saying restrict what they SAY in the ad but only that they all get an apportioned amount of time and they may not "buy more" (directly or via a pac)"
This is where I have a problem. Take a candidate like Obama. He may want to place an ad on every channel to maximize his reach. This may not be the best strategy, but as long as he's within his apportionment in your plan, he'd be free to do so. So suppose he does have this, and he gets some ads on say the Fox News Channel. And after that, Fox News tells him, "that's it, you've blown your wad with us, now we'd love to sell you more ad time, but rules are rules."
And right after that, Fox News resumes normal 24/7 programming which is pretty much identical in content to a super pac that's anti-Obama.
Also, within your plan, the DNC would have every incentive to run as many candidates as possible in the primary against Obama. Not that any would get a chance to come close to the nomination, but put up say 10-20 primary candidates to get some of that sweet apportionment time to use against the GOP field.
My point here is that since McCain-Fiengold, the only real changes we've seen in practical terms when it comes to finance reform is that the games they play just get sillier. The money still flows.
"you want to TRULY fix the problem? start by eliminating illegal "personhood" for corporations. then most of your rights issues go "poof" as they should."
That sounds great, but how do you draw the line between what a super pac does, and a media empire like News Corp does?
It gets a lot more fuzzier than that. How can any media company be allowed to editorialize and offer any opinion or analysis (NYT, WSJ, Maddow, Limbaugh, even Stewart and Colbert) without also allowing other media companies, or the corporate parents of media companies being allowed to do the same thing?
How is "Evil Corporation" buying 30 seconds, 30 minutes, or the entire network to voice their opinion something that you can restrict while allowing the "Good News Corporation" the freedom of speech and expression in order to bring us the news?
My point here is that the Supreme Court made a decision that we feel bad about (I do). But logically, it makes sense unless you're willing to place serious restrictions on freedom of speech and freedom of the press just to put up minor and easy to avoid barriers to campaign finance.
nerysFeb 23, 2012
like I said super pacs would be PART OF the apportionment. so if obama blew his wad none of the pacs are ALLOWED to advertise anything since obama (positive or negative) would have use his apportioned time.
they would not be permitted to "pay" for more time. so all ads would have to be "approved" by the candidate. no more third party ads.
I never agree to disagree. your problem is you have a logic fail. you keep saying free speech and free press and nothing I would see done would infringe EITHER of them.
mredofcourseFeb 23, 2012
"I never agree to disagree. your problem is you have a logic fail. you keep saying free speech and free press and nothing I would see done would infringe EITHER of them."
You missed a major point of my previous comment. You might want to read it again.
"they would not be permitted to "pay" for more time. so all ads would have to be "approved" by the candidate. no more third party ads."
Right, no more 3rd party ads no more pacs... nothing.
BUT...
"Welcome to Fox & Friends, this morning's show is all about irrationally bashing Obama in hopes that you will not only not vote for him, but put up signs for Santorum and convince your neighbors to do the same!"
What's the point in banning what we think of as a conventional 30 second ad spot, when News Corp is allowed to do this 24/7 under the name of freedom of the press?
And that's just talking about conventional old time television. Things get a lot more complicated with thousands of video channels, blogs, podcasts, and other modern channels of communication.
If you ban super pacs, and limit direct campaign ad buys by apportionment, and still allow freedom of the press, guess what businesses we can expect Halliburton, ExxonMobile, and Monsanto to buy?
GE and Comcast jointly own NBC. How do you regulate any of the NBC news shows from expressing political opinions that may favor one candidate or another on issues affecting GE or Comcast without restricting freedom of speech or freedom of the press?
Also, you never answered this, but at what point does individual personal speech even become a 3rd party ad?
I like Obama, and think you should vote for him. Again, that's just me, and I'm lucky if I even have you still as an audience of 1. But what happens when I tweet with 1,000 followers? 10,000 followers? 1 million or more? What if it's not just me, but a network of people where we agree to spread the same word through various channels, eventually reaching millions? What happens when I create a YouTube video and it gets more views than an ad on ABC would?
I know you don't have all the answers, but with so many holes, I think you have no answer at all.
nerysFeb 23, 2012
I give up. instead of trying to figure out a solution all you can do is poke holes and invent specific scenario's where the "vague" concept does not work.
How about a solution instead of whining it won't work?
mredofcourseFeb 23, 2012
"How about a solution instead of whining it won't work?"
Now I'm sure you've just been making the same argument over and over without reading anything I've actually written or at least thinking about the points. I proposed a solution. You you may not like it, but it's better than your solution.
I'm not "inventing specific scenarios" in order to whine about what you propose. I'm pointing out that unless you can plug those holes in what you propose, your solution only makes things worse. Those "scenarios" are now, and have been for some time, actual realities. It's not like News Corp "may" exist or GE/Comcast "may" buy a media empire. They do today, and yield far more power than any super pac (and so do my other examples).
Try actually answering some of my questions and you'll see your solution sucks.
The bottom line of your solution is that the more you try to plug those holes, the more you end up with additional costs to the taxpayer, additional restrictions to politicians who want to play fair, and more advantages to the corporate backed politicians who can always find loopholes.
I'm not whining here, I'm pointing to history. Heck, recent history shows this very clearly. You should take a close look cat McCain-Feingold and the positive intention with negative consequences that got us where we are today.
reaper527Feb 22, 2012
what a stupid article.
FTA:
"The Federal Communications Commission should forbid television broadcasters from charging for campaign ads,"
so television stations are supposed to run campaign ads for free, instead of running other ads that will bring in revenue? and if candidates can't pay to get their ads run, who is going to be ensuring that all candidates get fair allotments of time? the candidate who promises the most to the media will get a disproportionate amount of advertising time. this proposal takes the money out and replaces it with a proxy.
also FTA:
"We don’t vote state by state in the presidential election, so why should we do so in primaries for a national party candidate?"
because the democratic party and republican party are private entities. they can elect their nominee however they see fit. if they want to randomly draw straws to determine the party nominee, or pick the winner with a 1 mile sprint, that is within their rights. the parties will run their primary process as they see fit, and they see a long primary season (which attracts attention for their candidates) as a good thing.
Ouzel7Feb 22, 2012
"The Federal Communications Commission should forbid television broadcasters from charging for campaign ads..."
Yeah, that's actually TAKING from broadcasters and TV stations and making them give away their air time which would otherwise be sold. TV stations, broadcasters, etc ... are businesses, too.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
bookantFeb 22, 2012
"Like the water or the air, the spectrum over which broadcasters transmit their wares is a finite resource that everyone depends on, and which needs to be regulated by government to prevent chaos and hoarding. But in licensing some corporations to dominate the airwaves, Congress inevitably excluded others. I can’t start a radio broadcast from my home because it would interfere with licensed stations. Because choosing some voices over others is inherently unfair, Congress in the Radio Act of 1927 and the Communications Act of 1934 established a general requirement that broadcasters act in the “public interest, convenience and necessity.” This conception of broadcasters as public trustees has been repeatedly upheld by the Supreme Court."
Short version - those businesses are being GIVEN exclusive use of a publicly owned resource. And, yes, there is the expectation that they GIVE something back.
IMHO the author doesn't even make the case strongly enough. It isn't just the scarcity of the broadcast spectrum that's the issue. Legally, any of us that own property own the airspace ABOVE that property as well. In order to make certain types of businesses even possible (air travel, TV & radio), those corporations are GIVEN easements allowing them to fly their planes or broadcast their signals through OUR property. We individual land owners don't get a choice. It's TAKEN from us and GIVEN to big business. So, again - yes, we can expect them to give back.
Or, if they don't like that, we could eliminate the automatic easements. Keep in mind, radio and TV broadcast isn't directional. They'd have to negotiate deals with every. single. individual. landowner in their broadcast area. If even ONE said no, they wouldn't be allowed to broadcast at all.
Ouzel7Feb 22, 2012
I don't think you understand, though ... what the proposal to MANDATE that stations carry free advertising means.
And that's the specific point I was commenting on.
These ARE businesses. Even MSNBC is a business.
You'd essentially be saying, "You'll reserve x amount of your commercial time for candidates free of charge."
Charging for commercial airtime is how these entities make money. This money allows them to operate.
Legally speaking, a TV station, etc ... is already obligated to charge only the lowest established rate for a certain commercial during election time.
That's why your local news is often dominated by political ads. They are buying time for the lowest rate.
bookantFeb 23, 2012
"These ARE businesses. Even MSNBC is a business.
You'd essentially be saying, "You'll reserve x amount of your commercial time for candidates free of charge."
Yes. I think you're missing my point.
What I'm saying is - "You'll PAY US for the use of what belongs to US . . . by reserving x amount of your commercial time for candidates free of charge."Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
nerysFeb 23, 2012
DING DING DING someone gets it !!
the EM Spectrum belongs to "US" not THEM.
but ever since our corrupt government realized they could PROFIT from selling the bandwidth what we have gotten is ONLY THE MEGA RICH can afford a "free press"
the rest of us are "banned" by lack of funds and lack of more bandwidth.
Look at the CRAP with the digital switch over.
No digital vcr. no digital dvr no digital DVD-r
no portable digital (none of them can be used while moving EVEN WALKING and 100% of the signal goes POOF)
No digital audio portable receivers.
all the digital switch did was DESTROY TV for low income families who now MUST use a "box" to get TV even from cable and of course they took the opportunity to NOT switch to digital. instead they switch to PROPRIETARY digital. BREAKING all "unapproved" corporate DVR's in the process.
oh and 20 BILLION for the government. Where did that money go BTW ?
and now there is a new bill going through the grinder that will make it so ANY BANDWIDTH in the future that is proposed for "free" use (such as WIFI was) would have to FIRST be offered for purchase and would only be opened up to the free market IF NO ONE BUYS IT.
s**t they will buy it just to "have" it and keep out free competition.
Go figure.
WHEN are people going to wake up.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
bookantFeb 23, 2012
. . . and from your bury-and-run I'll go ahead and conclude that you're another corpratist who thinks that "business" should be synonymous with "entitled to free handouts from the taxpayers."Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
icwydFeb 22, 2012
They used to.
miklkitFeb 23, 2012
Indeed they did, pre-Reagan...............
upnorthgirlFeb 22, 2012
FTA: "Ari Berman has shown that about four-fifths of the money raised by super PACs in 2011 for the Republican primary contests was donated by only 196 individuals..."
reaper527Feb 22, 2012
worth mentioning, this is the first primary process since citizens united, and for all intents and purposes there is only a republican primary this year.
just wait until we see a democratic primary in the lead up to 2016 and see if their super pacs have significantly different numbers or not.
upnorthgirlFeb 22, 2012
reaper, while we won't see SuperPACs in a democratic primary (because there is none), we will see SuperPACs this fall in the election - both sides. I do not think this bodes well for any of us who do not have the $$ to play in the SuperPacs, no matter your political affiliation
marcglezFeb 22, 2012
Unemployment is coming down economy is improving, the DOW hit 13,000 for the first time since 2008.
However, the Oil Cartel is putting the brakes on the economic recovery as a way of pay back to Obama for Keystone XL pipeline and not giving immunity in the Gulf of Mexico.
icwydFeb 22, 2012
That is it, isn't it?
nerysFeb 23, 2012
yeah if only it were the oil cartel. instead its our own wall street putting the screws to our economy via speculation.
be mad. thats good. but it helps to be mad at the RIGHT PEOPLE.
Be mad at GM for killing the electric car which would eliminate our need for foreign oil. Be MAD at the US government for helping them kill it via the $100k hummer tax credit.
BE MAD that patents are being used to suppress tech instead of fostering innovation.
BE MAD that the gov gives subsidies to what is profitable to THEM instead of what is profitable to US.
I could care less about OPEC. its THEIR f**kING OIL they can and should price it any damned way they wish.
I don't have a problem with big oil.
I have a problem with OUR CORPORATIONS AND OUR GOVERNMENT HELPING THEM for their own greedy unrelated reasons. (unrelated to oil specifically)
if I had my say the patent on the E95 NIMH's would be nullified.
Major Automakers would have 6 months to start rolling out electric cars for under $14k that can go 100miles on a charge using a standardized planform across all brands (if they want to make others great go for it) and mass production must be going within a year
OR THEY ARE NO LONGER WELCOME TO DO BUSINESS IN THIS COUNTRY.
this would apply to US AND Foreign Auto Makers.
There. FIXED your f**king oil problem. I just made OPEC irrelevant.
and it won't cost taxpayers a penny.
If foreign companies don't work toward that objective WE KICK THEM OUT by raising tarriff's so high they go bankrupt selling cars here.
if DOMESTIC major makers refuse same deal we TAX THEM into non existence.
when they go out of business we buy em up cheap and PUT people in charge who are willing to DO AS THEY ARE TOLD.
I am tired of taking it up the ass from these auto makers and my government.
when the f**k are you people going to wake up?
or are you waiting for the new DILDO called hydrogen to be shoved up your ass?
marcglezFeb 23, 2012
Oil Cartel, Wall Street's Cannibal Capitalism (taught at Harvard)
How would you think Wall Street would allow an American policy to force other markets like China to force them to open up their market or else when THEY where the ones who came out with this great 6 markets global economy.
Also, Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the Earth and the entire universe. It is not only is the fuel for rockets but it is also the fuel of the stars.
The technology to separate water molecules for instance already exist but it takes the size of a large bus.
Remember when the Air Force first airborne laser was mounted on a 747? the second generation fit on an C130 a plane 1/3 the size of a jumbo.
Leave it to American ingenuity, leave it to Silicone Valley talent and within a decade hydrogen power locomotives and ships will set sail right before Hydrogen carsComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
nerysFeb 23, 2012
Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe.
it also DOES NOT EXIST ON EARTH. it has to be MADE because it DOES NOT EXIST IN ITS PURE FORM ON EARTH. only as a combination in an molecule such as water.
OR hey what is the most COMMON and CHEAP source of hydrogen today. Oh yeah PETROLEUM. of course.
of course what IS a hydrogen fuel cell car? its an ELECTRIC CAR where the "consumer friendly battery" has been removed and the "corporate friendly" fuel cell has been installed in its place.
OH wait were you actually DELUSIONAL ENOUGH to think you would be PERMITTED to "make and store" your own hydrogen at home even if the multi 10's of thousands of dollars worth of equipment you would NEED to do it became available as a price any normal mortal could afford? HELL NO.
The technology to "electrolyze" water into oxygen and hydrogen fits in your HAND marcglez
and its VERY SIMPLE CHEAP equipment. all you need is electricity and a catalyst. VERY CHEAP.
the problem is it takes a simply SICK amount of POWER TO DO IT.
Hydrogen MAKES SENSE when your a freaking ROCKET SHIP. I BUILD rockets. I know all about that aspect.
it makes NO SENSE for cars.
and its USELESS for going to the stars unless you make it as you go (so far we have NO CONTAINER that can hold the stuff long term) so great for a "boost" into space HORRIBLE for anything else.
its energy density is just too low and it leaks through ANYTHING. a solid steel container is little better than a "screen door" to hydrogen.
its SO BAD they have specialized robots to scan the outside surface of H2 storage tanks so find the "leaks" where streams of hydrogen leak RIGHT THROUGH THE SIDE OF THE TANK. if they were to ignite (nearly invisible flame at that scale) and weaken the tank. well man that would suck.
so rest assured IF anyone ever invents a cheap way for someone not to MAKE h2 but to STORE IT the very next day it will be rendered ILLEGAL. no one wants a neighbor with a tank of hydrogen in the garage. (even if its not really all that dangerous)
both HYDROGEN and BATTERIES will use power from the GRID the SAME grid so we can ignore GRID backwards efficiencies since they are the same for both.
GRID to wheels efficiency of hydrogen is 24%
GRID to wheels efficiency of batteries is 89% upwards of 95% for good NIMHS.
its a black and white comparison. hydrogen SUCKS.
they want hydrogen because it does TWO THINGS.
#1 they are complicated expensive to maintain vehicles READ high profit. (while battery electrics are INSANELY SIMPLE and virtually maintenance free ie LOWER PROFIT)
#2 they retain CONTROL OF THE FUEL which means THEY stay in charge.
with Batteries SOME and I do mean a LOT of control shifts back where it belongs. TO THE PEOPLE.
you could put $2k or $3k ($500 if nano solar gets off their asses) of solar panels on your roof and use a net overall ZERO watts from the grid for your electric car.
IE your fuel costs you NOTHING.
They can build a $14k four door midsize family sedan economy car with a 25-30 year lifespan $4500 battery pack (included in that $14k price tag) that will do 100 miles to a charge (IE enough for 90% of the nation!!)
that is not cost. that is FULL RETAIL with NO SUBSIDIES OR TAX BREAKS.
add in the $7500 government credit and the car is FREE over what your likely paying now.
IE the monthly payment will be LESS THAN most of us are paying each month in "gasoline" now.
and it would add on average $150-$200 to your electric bill. PER YEAR.
Run an electric HEATER for 1 month and you just used more power than your electric car (nimh powered lithium takes more power) will use in an entire year!
YES it really is that good it really is that efficient and all of this tech is OFF THE SHELF except for the battery which GM insured you could not have.
if compelled they could be cranking these out inside 6 months to a year TOPS.
they simple REFUSE TOO.
The auto makers don't like long lasting CHEAP low maintenance cars.
Government does not like fuel they can't control and tax and hold over its citizens heads.
The oil companies don't even factor into this equation.
if we wholesale switch to an EV infrastructure for our cars and trucks not only would we save TRILLIONS of dollars and MASSIVELY REINVIGORATE THE ECONOMY but we could 100% eliminate all foreign oil needs. our DOMESTIC production would be more than sufficient for our needs.
we could then tell big oil to go f**k themselves and lube up with their OIL that we don't need anymore.
just the savings in not having to MEDDLE in the middle east and everywhere else in the world with the military COULD PAY for the switch over.
but that means more profit and liberty for THE AVERAGE PERSON and a lot less profit and CONTROL by the few
which is why they REFUSE to do it and why they went to great lengths to KILL IT DEAD.
all for profit and control.
barackalypseFeb 23, 2012
"Would the Florida electoral contest, for instance, have yielded more light and less heat if each candidate had been apportioned airtime based on an equitable formula?"
How do you make an "equitable formula" that isn't easily gamed to the benefit of incumbents and those with substantial existing name recognition? The most equitable is to give everyone equal time, but then established politicians will just have their supporters enter as trojan horse candidates and dilute the air time to next to nothing.
There isn't an easy answer to this, removing money from the equation doesn't fix the problem, it just presents different problems.
barackalypseFeb 23, 2012
I'm sure incumbents and those candidates who already have significant name recognition would love this. When you limit the amount of exposure possible you make it harder for new voices to be heard.
nerysFeb 23, 2012
but you also give a voice to some who would otherwise be FLAT OUT IGNORED.
barackalypseFeb 23, 2012
I'm debating how much of a voice they'll end up getting if airtime is given to anyone that is running.
nerysFeb 23, 2012
anything to slow down government has GOT to be a good thing :-) either way whatever voice they get is better than the effective ZERO they get now.
technopunditFeb 22, 2012
I see no problem with TV and Radio getting the benefits of this sort of spending.
If ya don't like the commercials, get a Tivo.
Ouzel7Feb 23, 2012
Exactly. Thank you.
As I said before...you might as well tell local hardware stores that they have to provide free pickets and printing companies that they have to provide free signs.
chadpyleFeb 23, 2012
"The Federal Communications Commission should forbid television broadcasters from charging for campaign ads"
And airlines should provide free private jets, hotels should provide free suites and conference rooms, tailors should provide free suits, transportation groups should provide free buses, radio stations, print...
I agree that the campaign financing has gotten out of control - this is a pretty ridiculous solution, though.
specimen7Feb 22, 2012
Felis catus is your taxonomic nomenclature,
An endothermic quadruped, carnivorous by nature;
Your visual, olfactory, and auditory senses
Contribute to your hunting skills and natural defenses.
I find myself intrigued by your subvocal oscillations,
A singular development of cat communications
That obviates your basic hedonistic predilection
For a rhythmic stroking of your fur to demonstrate affection.
A tail is quite essential for your acrobatic talents;
You would not be so agile if you lacked its counterbalance.
And when not being utilized to aid in locomotion,
It often serves to illustrate the state of your emotion.
O Spot, the complex levels of behavior you display
Connote a fairly well-developed cognitive array.
And though you are not sentient, Spot, and do not comprehend,
I nonetheless consider you a true and valued friend.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
barackalypseFeb 23, 2012
Data, you should go get your neural pathways adjusted, you're spewing irrelevant crap again.
knm123Feb 22, 2012
lets be honest - how much information do you get out of a 30 second ad - often time there is only enough time to spout a possible dark cloud over a candidate and proclaim - My name is so and so and I approve this message.... So even if it was free it wouldn't stop the negative ads - we probably would have more. but at least if it is controlled it would be a lesser amount of time. Besides, try taking all that cash out of the TV companies and you will end up... dead....
eazybuzyFeb 22, 2012
awsome article with much information and facts...you may also visit eazybuzy.com