As we come up to the #midterms #elections in the US, I have a thought: We cannot stop the wave of political advertising, but could we tax it heavily? Maybe use the revenue to even out election funding, or have a nice pot of general fund money waiting for the winners. #Politics
@derickflorian Third parties would benefit more from using any other system than first past the post voting (I'm a single transferable vote person myself, but I know that is a pretty complex system both to implement and for voters to understand.)
It is in fact not political speech I want to tax, but in means of amplifying that speech (buying TV time, printing mailers, paying phone bank callers.) Local candidates who go to public spaces and talk to voters should be able to do so without impediment, but when every second ad is for #prop27, yeah I want some social benefit from that mess.
@antares Yeah, I’m in the land of Dr. Oz so I would be glad if something good came out of the money his campaign is spending. :) Is prop 27 about the one about sports gambling?
@derickflorian Yes, one of two on that topic, and the one supported by the national sports betting corporations.
@antares it comes full circle for me! I originally said free speech without remembering that most amplified free speech is just corporate speech.
@antares That would be a great idea. I think there is a general fund candidates can use in the presidential election but only if they agree not to raise beyond a certain amount of money.
This could definitely even the playing field for 3rd parties, but then it would come down to the 2 major parties voting against their own interest. I could also see people claiming it is essentially a tax on free speech potentially.