An absolutely horrendous amount of money to be spent! It's interesting to see how much the Democrats spent on the midterms in 2010 and 2014 especially given they lost them both. This time Democrats seem to have it under control more with the spending. GOP has remained consistent in their spending. Personally I think it should be capped at $100 million each party. It is good to see both Democrats and GOP have managed to reduce the debt the party owes
Money doesn't win you elections. lol Do you think buying 10 more ads is actually going to win you an election? In fact, there is a definite correlation between overspending and losing voter support. Once you have enough to equally compete with your opponent the rest comes down to your message and rallying your supporters to get out and vote. There have been so, so many examples of people spending more and losing that this talking point is just a joke.
Spending money is kinda important at the Federal level. When my grandfather became eligible to vote at 18, a Congressman represented 120,000 people. Today, the lowest representative to constituent ratio is around 250,000, with many districts reaching 700,000. How would you ever reach that many people? Money buys ads, ads create involvement, and involvement wins elections.
Exactly. And there is also the problem that advertising outlets ratchet up their price during political season, something that needs to be seriously addressed. Current state laws in regards to price gouging do not cover elections. A presidential ad during prime time television can cost more than a superbowl ad. We are talking in the millions of dollars. Placing signs in every state in every neighborhood runs into the tens of millions. Venue rentals are insane, the campaigns must pay for this themselves.
The problem is making sure those limits get enforced fairly. What guarantee is there those election laws are not going to be used to go after one Party, leaving the other party free to break the rules and having an unfair advantage? The prosecutorial arm of the government is very centralized and it would be easy for whatever Party is in power to selectively enforce the law to their advantage. In the end, there's really no effective way to police the politicians. There ultimately has to be someone at the top to make sure everyone's following the rules, and therein lies the problem. You're not going to be able to simply legislate your way out of these inherent structural problems.
Another alternative could be to have both major parties come together and agree to a deal, a sort of treaty between two rival sides, that they both agree not to spend more than a certain amount. There are basically only two major parties in U.S. politics so there is no reason to have to legislate it. If either of them is found to have broken the agreement, it will hurt them both in the long-term because more money is going to have to be spent the next election cycle. (Somewhat like that star trek episode "A Taste of Armageddon")
The pace of technology is making traditional media irreverent, and with greater competition much more affordable. Not to mention that with the data collection everyone always throws a fit about, I actually see ads that I want to see. When I'm on Facebook, chances are advertising is focused entirely on **** I actually want to buy. Just yesterday I saw an ad for a zero waste, craft toothpaste made in small batches in my hometown of Los Angeles. I immediately signed up for a subscription. Last weekend I attended an event with the Young Republicans because I saw an ad for the event, and that event fit my interests. In both instances my engagement only cost those paying for it 30-50 cents, which considering traditional campaign advertising costs is a hell of a bargain.
Yes but that's problematic. Those sites use your browsing history to determine what advertising to focus on you. I remember one man asking if anyone else was suddenly getting bombarded with Russia mail order bride ads and had to chuckle. After I explained it to him he left the forum and I've not seen him since. My point is that many people consider this an invasion of privacy. To my knowledge there hasn't been any campaigns using this tactic yet and I'm not sure how effective it would be.
I didn't mean campaigns were doing that, but social media platforms such as Facebook, Google, and Instagram. Targeted advertising is technically more expensive, but the ROI is easily three or four times higher than traditional platforms.
Yes they are, and many other sites also. Still, its ultimately up to the individual to make the choice. And this also show the difference between liberals and conservatives. We believe people are smart enough to make up their own minds. Liberals believe they aren't, that people are generally stupid so the government must step in to protect them. I'm sorry, but if you get talked into buying a fudgenutter do thangy sedamtic window tinter with blue bells, that is your fault and you can live with it.
If you're pissed off about targeted advertising, you're an idiot. In a world flooded with products, I very much enjoy someone taking the time to identify exactly what I want. Social media platforms know the exact same things about me as anyone who has ever sat next to me in a bar.
Politicians are good at spending obscene amounts of money so the sums involved at campaign level doesn't surprise me.
The danger when you try to police something like political election spending is that some of these laws could be selectively enforced against opponents by those currently in power. Ideas behind laws can be simple, but their implementation can have a lot of unintended consequences. I'd be worried that trying to put limits on spending could lead to a sort of situation like when the country had Prohibition. Obviously, either side that decided to "cheat" could have a political advantage, so there'd be pressure to cheat just to be able to compete with the other side, despite the risk of getting caught (sort of analogous to widespread steroid use in sports). Laws don't magically prevent people from doing things.
