Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Oh, is the new talking point that political ads have no effect? If that’s what you want to go with, fine with me.
As I wave my hand across from left to right and in my best imitation of Obie-Wan Kenobie's voice, "These are not the political ads you will be influenced by."
Are you the one that Jabba The Hut referred to when he said something like, "You weak minded fool. He's using an old Jedi political advertising mind trick."
I've asked this for years and like you, most refuse to acknowledge the ads changed their minds at all. What ad changed your mind?
The question is specious.
Whether the poster was personally affected is irrelevant, since many other people were.
In 2007, $279 Billion was spent on advertising. That was in 2007. In 2018, $109 Billion alone was spent on digital advertising (as distinct from radio, TV and print).
Advertising spending is under-reported, because there is no requirement to report it.
The SEC has no control over the 97% of US businesses that are private companies, and for the 3% of businesses over which it does exercise control, publicly-traded corporations only have to report advertising if it exceeds 5% of their gross revenues.
Advertising does have an impact.
For if it did not, then no one would bother wasting $Billions on something that didn't work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by desertdetroiter
Corporations are people?
You can thank religion for that.
Remember, prior to the 14th Amendment, States were not subject to the US Constitution.
That means States were free to ban religions or set up State religions, but most States did neither.
The States did, however, enforce ecclesiastical laws.
That allowed churches to set up taxation districts. You paid a tax to the church whether you wanted to or not, whether you were a member of that church or not and even if you weren't even of the same sect.
If you didn't pay the tax, the church would confiscate your property or throw you in jail or both and the church had the full power and backing of the State.
Quite a few corporations tried to get around paying the tax to the church with clever arguments.
In one instance, it was argued that corporations have no soul, and so shouldn't subject to the tax, but State Supreme Court said it didn't matter and corporations are people and have to pay the tax to the church.
Whether the poster was personally affected is irrelevant, since many other people were.
Who? You? If all it was about is spending money, Hillary would have won. She spent many times over what Trump spent. The Koch Brothers sat that one out. Soros spent millions and lost. Why didn't their ads and money convince people to vote for Hillary?
Quote:
In 2007, $279 Billion was spent on advertising. That was in 2007. In 2018, $109 Billion alone was spent on digital advertising (as distinct from radio, TV and print).
Advertising spending is under-reported, because there is no requirement to report it.
The SEC has no control over the 97% of US businesses that are private companies, and for the 3% of businesses over which it does exercise control, publicly-traded corporations only have to report advertising if it exceeds 5% of their gross revenues.
Advertising does have an impact.
For if it did not, then no one would bother wasting $Billions on something that didn't work.
Why didn't Hillary win? The vast majority of that money was spent on Hillary.
Who? You? If all it was about is spending money, Hillary would have won. She spent many times over what Trump spent. The Koch Brothers sat that one out. Soros spent millions and lost. Why didn't their ads and money convince people to vote for Hillary?
Why didn't Hillary win? The vast majority of that money was spent on Hillary.
I am not a fan of corporations being treated as a person, especially when there name is Disney because they are infamous for the congressional lobbying for stricter and longer copyrights.
Freedom of speech was never meant to include freedom to donate unlimited amounts of money anonymously to impact political outcomes.
"Freedom of speech was never meant to include freedom to donate unlimited amounts of money anonymously to impact political outcomes"
Show us quotes from the Founding Father's supporting your "opinion".
The court rewrote the 1st to include freedom of EXPRESSION.
I can burn the American flag to "express" how I "feel" about something. Is there a LIMIT on how may flags I can burn?
In order to "express" who I want as a politician in office I "express" it by contributing to their campaign. The government CANNOT put a limit on how much I want to "express" X to win.
Comparing the influence of a local billboard to the influential impact of a $93 million donation is the logical fallacy of false equivalence.
"Comparing the influence of a local billboard to the influential impact of a $93 million donation is the logical fallacy of false equivalence"
Who says ONLY LOCALS will read them? It depends on WHERE they are.
How much do you think it would cost to put a bill board in every state that I 95 runs through for say a month before the election?
Average daily traffic is over 72,000 vehicles, with peak daily average over 300,000 vehicles. Who knows how many voters are in the vehicles.
I think the "impact" is a hell of a lot MORE then you think!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
