Could you change the title to say "State of Washington"?
or just "Washington State"
State of Washington sues Facebook and Google over failure to disclose spending
41–50 of 213 posts
Re: State of Washington sues Facebook and Google over failure to disclose spending
#42Earlier quoted context omitted.
They don’t because of the first amendment. A person is allowed to influence the election as much as they can. There is no difference between HBO broadcasting Bill Maher into millions of home and Bill Maher paying for YouTube ads. You can’t even differentiate between people and corporations. Because otherwise the government could tell the New York Times to stop writing articles against trump. After all they are a for…
I completely disagree. Placing a flat limit of $1000 per person per tax year, and only allowing actual people to contribute should not have any negative effects on free speech.
What happens to the big media companies? Time on there is worth way more than $1,000. Are they unable to talk about the elections at all?
Re: State of Washington sues Facebook and Google over failure to disclose spending
#43The numbers reported strike me as very small (I buy digital political ads for work). Especially 1.1mm in 2016 for FB statewide strikes me as tiny! Looking at official candidate committees for Senate+Congress only in '16 is close-ish to 30mm raised (1). Plus PACs, 501c3/4s, any Presidential spend on top, I would guess double that at least. Even if 50mm total spend that would be only 2% spent on FB which seems really l…
Doesn't matter; every penny must be accounted for when it comes to political spending. Failure to account is literally the corruption which is rotting the foundation of our democracy. I'm personally applauding Washington for taking this bold move, as both Facebook and Google have Seattle-area offices which they will likely not want to close. Washington and Oregon tend to act alike, and both Facebook and Google have n…
Anonymous speech (for individuals) is also central to a functioning republic democracy.
Re: State of Washington sues Facebook and Google over failure to disclose spending
#44Earlier quoted context omitted.
I completely disagree. Placing a flat limit of $1000 per person per tax year, and only allowing actual people to contribute should not have any negative effects on free speech.
They aren't contributing to the compaign - Citizens United was about spending money on your own advertising. You are allowed to buy whatever airtime you want to say whatever you want. If you happen to want to say something nice about one candidate or mean about another in the airtime you bought it's hard to argue that's not covered by free speech rights. You can argue that this has perverse effects - but the courts h…
Citizens United made and sold a documentary. There's no difference between that and HBO, spending limits are ultimately an attack on independent media and new media.
Re: State of Washington sues Facebook and Google over failure to disclose spending
#45Earlier quoted context omitted.
Doesn't matter; every penny must be accounted for when it comes to political spending. Failure to account is literally the corruption which is rotting the foundation of our democracy. I'm personally applauding Washington for taking this bold move, as both Facebook and Google have Seattle-area offices which they will likely not want to close. Washington and Oregon tend to act alike, and both Facebook and Google have n…
Anonymous speech (for individuals) is also central to a functioning republic democracy.
i see nothing noble about enabling anonymous fronts for billionares to push stuff like fake grassroots movements.
Re: State of Washington sues Facebook and Google over failure to disclose spending
#46Earlier quoted context omitted.
They don’t because of the first amendment. A person is allowed to influence the election as much as they can. There is no difference between HBO broadcasting Bill Maher into millions of home and Bill Maher paying for YouTube ads. You can’t even differentiate between people and corporations. Because otherwise the government could tell the New York Times to stop writing articles against trump. After all they are a for…
I completely disagree. Placing a flat limit of $1000 per person per tax year, and only allowing actual people to contribute should not have any negative effects on free speech.
Would you shut down the Washington Post? Or is Jeff Bezos allowed to buy a newspaper?
Why is Anderson Cooper allowed to spread his opinions with the aid of a multi hundred million dollar distribution system but I can’t buy 2000 dollars of Facebook ads?
Limits on funding speech are limits on speech.
Re: State of Washington sues Facebook and Google over failure to disclose spending
#47Re: State of Washington sues Facebook and Google over failure to disclose spending
#48Could you change the title to say "State of Washington"?
Here I was thinking George was up to something! In all seriousness, this really should be updated, but somehow omitting "state of" sounds more powerful to me...although I'm not sure why I feel this way?
Perhaps because Washington alone would represent the HQ of the national government. Think of "London", "Beijing".
Re: State of Washington sues Facebook and Google over failure to disclose spending
#49Re: State of Washington sues Facebook and Google over failure to disclose spending
#50How many of the funders breached federal or state mandated limits on spending? I ask, because in the "brexit" circumstances it becomes clear the "leave" campaign eggregiously breached the declared public advertising spending limits through use of indirect/third-party funding channels who did placement in social media.
This isn't strictly illegal in the U.S. due to the Citizens United decision. Because of free speech blah blah blah I can spend an unlimited amount of money for a cause or canidate as long as I don't coordinate with that campaign.
> Citizens United decision
Ah yes, our era's Dred Scott decision.