Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

How does one propose a bill?

I have a dream... where politicians have to at least be very _clever_ in their lies. Where "joe sixpack" is made aware of political lies swiftly, deftly, and with a minimum of bias. I know there are groups that do this--but they don't have nearly the funding they need to actually change the political climate. Only people who _want_ to know will find them, let alone keep up with them. Politicians seem perfectly free to ignore them and lie indiscriminately.

What if there were a "politics tax"--where every dollar spent on political ads had to be matched (by some reasonable percentage, but my desire would be 1:1) by funds for a political watchdog committee--which would then buy up ads to rebut (in an independent manner) the blatant lies. ((much like how it works for tobacco companies, yes? Who else has to do this?))

What do you see as holes in this idea?



Oct. 3rd, 2008 06:18 pm (UTC)
It wasn't a good idea because it cut down on your free speech and your right to say something biased.

Hmm. Could you go into more detail on this? Seems like you could say anything as biased as you wanted, and then your foil could say something equally biased, and you're even. ((though I do think bias is too difficult to deal with, hence "independent" org))

And who watches the watchman? How do you determine who is lying, and can you trust the watchers?

That's the biggest question. I imagine there would be many public watchdog groups watching the watchers. The question would be how to give objectivity reasonable control over the watchers. I think it would have to be a congress-driven thing, committee of some sort, with enough folks from both sides (how sad is it there are only two sides? and more and more so in the new polarized America). Nothing's perfect, definitely. I'm just aiming for better ;)

Thirdly, are you seriously proposing more taxes? Because that money has to come from somewhere, and that means the taxpayers. Can't say as I'd support that.

The money would come from the politicians. Just as cigarette companies have to pay their counterparts, the folks posting political ads would have to fund the committee.

Oct. 6th, 2008 12:44 am (UTC)
I don't think mandating an equal and opposite amount of bias really cancels out, is the problem. I also don't think speech should be mandated!

I'm not sure it's sad that there are two sides, Democratic and Republican. It's the American Way. Getting a third party on the ticket is very difficult. Or to put it another way, there are countries like Germany which are representational democracies where five percent of the vote gets you representation. I don't know as it's bad or worse; it's just different. We've chosen to go another way in the New World. Polarization is nothing new here since the founding of the country.

The politicians raise money from us. Again, taxing the politicans to pay for ads against them and monitoring just seems wrong. The cigarette companies have to pay for counter-advertising as part of the terms of a lawsuit that they lost. It's different.

Latest Month

February 2016


Page Summary

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by chasethestars