http://adage.com/article?article_id=141633
Monday, January 25, 2010
Supreme Court ruling on Campaign Advertising
Although we haven't directly covered this area yet, I think it's important in the realm of media and culture. The Supreme Court made a new ruling last week on how corporations can contribute to political campaigns. This article from Ad Age denotes how the ruling will affect campaign advertising in the future.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Wow, this is really going to change the way candidates campaign. In the article they talk about being "savvy and smart" with campaign money and I completely agree that candidates should target there money and not spend ridiculous amounts bombarding people everywhere they go. I also think that a candidate who is supported by people who have more money (i.e. celebrities, business owners, entrepreneurs) will have more opportunities to be seen and have less boundaries then a candidate who's support has less money. This is truly a scary idea when you start to put it into perspective.
ReplyDeleteThat is a scary idea. Pretty soon candidates will start selling ad space on their neckties!
ReplyDeleteIt worries me that these corporations will finance campaigns and the candidates will be in debt to them. So in order to make it up to the corporation, they have to push laws and agendas that are in favor of the corporations and not for the people.
Brings up another problem with political advertising - why is it okay to lie in political ads and not about toothpaste? Why do politicians get free passes? Shouldn't they be held to the same FTC constraints?
Jeffrey Toobin wrote a piece for the New Yorker this week regarding this issue dealing with implications on a more local level: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2010/01/campaign-finance.html
ReplyDeleteToobin is a regular contributor to the New Yorker and CNN as well as author of "The Nine" a group profile of the men and women that have shaped our legal system from the Supreme Court bench.