Political Ad Fairness Act

[Galloism]

So, I have a rough idea of what would be a fantastic (if possibly wholly impractical) law.

For all political federal level ads not run directly by political campaigns (especially those run by PACs), we charge a 100% excise tax on the amount it costs to produce and run the campaign ad. All such ads must also have a 14 day delay before running on TV, radio, etc. In addition, the law requires the TV station to air the counter-ad immediately following the political ad (with reasonable compensation not to exceed the cost of the original ad for the same airtime).

The funds will be used to fact-check the ads and hire someone to direct an ad designed to counter that ad with facts and show in any way the ad is incorrect, misleading, or overly alarming. We can get John Oliver to star in all the counter ads.

If nothing else, it would make election season like 5,000% more enjoyable.

What say ye, NSG?

[Vista Major]

Doesn't sound like too bad an idea, actually

[Aggicificicerous]

If we're going into the realm of wishful thinking, I would prefer all paid political advertising banned. Politicians can make statements on public broadcasting, and perhaps news corporations could run additional segments on political parties and their ideas, but nothing more.

[Atlanticatia]

Or just ban it outside of a delegated, publicly-funded party political broadcast time. But your idea would work too

[The Snazzylands]

I think "Political Ad Fairness" is an oxymoron.
But it's a great idea for some sort of web/tv show where a group of smug comedians and poli-sci students point out everything wrong with a campaign ad, and also maybe come up with a parody version.

If we're going into the realm of wishful thinking, I would prefer all paid political advertising banned. Politicians can make statements on public broadcasting, and perhaps news corporations could run additional segments on political parties and their ideas, but nothing more.

This would be a more realistic approach though.

[Gauthier]

"The Political Ad Fairness Act is another example of government overreach trying to stifle Freedom of Speech. Call your Congressman and tell them to stop this fascist intrusion on your rights!"

[Cannot think of a name]

I think you just put more money into politics because running the ads just cost twice as much (producing them the same...)

The problem is the democratization of 'truth' or Colbert's 'truthiness.' How often has something been wrong and the person just doubled down on their bullshit by creating some bizarre narrow definition or context in which it's kind of right but ultimately doesn't mean what they're trying to mean but if you point it out it's just your 'bias'...or that something is true or not even here because it sounds true to the person? They'll just defeat this the way they defeat all the current methods of fact checking, by whining about bias and how we're all against them and you should donate to their campaign because they're fighting for...freedom or something.

Until you untie the knot of the truth is not what you want it to be but a thing you can check you're just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

[MERIZoC]

Why bother? Seems like a waste of time and energy. Just limit campaign financing, addresses the same problem in an easier way.

[Sam Hyde]

Sweet now I can use public money to raise awareness about certain falsehoods of the Holocaust.

[Planeia]

I fucking wish, man.

[Fremont Forest]

Sweet now I can use public money to raise awareness about certain falsehoods of the Holocaust.

I'm morbidly curious about what you mean by this

[Northwest Slobovia]

Entertaining but unconstitutional. Perhaps NS needs a new issue.

[Grinning Dragon]

If we're going into the realm of wishful thinking, I would prefer all paid political advertising banned. Politicians can make statements on public broadcasting, and perhaps news corporations could run additional segments on political parties and their ideas, but nothing more.

I too prefer that those annoying political bullshit ads were not aired. As if watching bobble head dispshits on the news bloviating their ignorance isn't enough on a daily basis of who we should sell our souls to on election night, but then to be subjected to even more ear bleeding lies and half truths and down right some of the dumbest bullshit ever to be aired combined with the shittiest acting, would be best left to an echo chamber located in the deepest trench in the ocean far far away from my ears.

[Geilinor]

Why bother? Seems like a waste of time and energy. Just limit campaign financing, addresses the same problem in an easier way.

He's trying to find a way to do it without an amendment.

[Banija]

While the idea would be highly entertaining, I'd totally be against it actually be implemented into law.

Then we'd be using tax dollars to for Donald Trump, and you'd see, theoretically, twice the amount of ads that you do now on television. We need less political ads in our life, not more

And then the question comes of what if there are more than 2 viewpoints? If Donald Trump runs an ad, then does that have to be followed by the ads of the other 17 GOP candidates? That'd be a nightmare, sitting through 18 straight 30 second ads for each and every Republican candidate for office while I'm trying to watch the Detroit Tigers play. I'd throw something through my television

[Prussia-Steinbach]

I understand it isn't supposed to be detailed or totally worked out, but I can totally get behind the idea of this. Definitely.

Especially the mandatory fact-checking.

[Ifreann]

So, I have a rough idea of what would be a fantastic (if possibly wholly impractical) law.

For all political federal level ads not run directly by political campaigns (especially those run by PACs), we charge a 100% excise tax on the amount it costs to produce and run the campaign ad. All such ads must also have a 14 day delay before running on TV, radio, etc. In addition, the law requires the TV station to air the counter-ad immediately following the political ad (with reasonable compensation not to exceed the cost of the original ad for the same airtime).

The funds will be used to fact-check the ads and hire someone to direct an ad designed to counter that ad with facts and show in any way the ad is incorrect, misleading, or overly alarming. We can get John Oliver to star in all the counter ads.

If nothing else, it would make election season like 5,000% more enjoyable.

What say ye, NSG?

I think you're going to need more than one John Oliver.

[Esternial]

So efforts to combat misinformation are definitely welcome, and not just when it comes to politics.

News agencies that spread false stories should receive some sort of penalty, in my opinion. A monetary fine or such, to encourage proper fact-checking before just throwing a story out there that could misinform people.

[Gauthier]

So efforts to combat misinformation are definitely welcome, and not just when it comes to politics.

News agencies that spread false stories should receive some sort of penalty, in my opinion. A monetary fine or such, to encourage proper fact-checking before just throwing a story out there that could misinform people.

And then FOXNews files a lawsuit claiming discrimination.

[Ostroeuropa]

I'd support it, purely because i'm out of ideas on how else to stop people lying on air.
It's a silly solution, but it's a solution.

[Liriena]

I like this proposal. :3

[Fremont Forest]

Why bother? Seems like a waste of time and energy. Just limit campaign financing, addresses the same problem in an easier way.

He's trying to find a way to do it without an amendment.

This proposal probably would require an amendment.

[The Qeiiam Star Cluster]

So, I have a rough idea of what would be a fantastic (if possibly wholly impractical) law.

For all political federal level ads not run directly by political campaigns (especially those run by PACs), we charge a 100% excise tax on the amount it costs to produce and run the campaign ad. All such ads must also have a 14 day delay before running on TV, radio, etc. In addition, the law requires the TV station to air the counter-ad immediately following the political ad (with reasonable compensation not to exceed the cost of the original ad for the same airtime).

The funds will be used to fact-check the ads and hire someone to direct an ad designed to counter that ad with facts and show in any way the ad is incorrect, misleading, or overly alarming. We can get John Oliver to star in all the counter ads.

If nothing else, it would make election season like 5,000% more enjoyable.

What say ye, NSG?

I think you're going to need more than one John Oliver.

Alright, I'll prepare the cloning vats.

[Galloism]

He's trying to find a way to do it without an amendment.

This proposal probably would require an amendment.

Probably... not.

Maybe. Congress already has the power to lay and collect taxes, including excise taxes. Congress also has the power to purchase airtime if it's in the public interest. The only issue that I can see is requiring networks to air the counter ad, but one could argue that allowing the networks to use the frequency grants sufficient oversight to require it, provided reasonable compensation is made.

That is the sticky part, though.

[Ethel mermania]

The problem is folks don't always agree on facts.