If I may jump in here, I live in a country where political advertisement is strictly regulated and almost all political debate takes place on public television, available to everyone, and there's a commitment to neutrality in reporting and equal representation of all parties.
Now this surely doesn't give everyone the same voice and many people are still marginalised and despite the lack of money involvement are excluded, but it may be worth pointing out that the US status quo is not the only model on this planet.
Instead of increasing the asymmetry by letting those with more money expand their influence even more, you could take measures to level the playing field.
I can see all sorts of things working for a small country that do not scale to a large country. Something that works well in, eg, Denmark might be appropriate if applied to somewhere of comparable size and complexity like the New York city centre but in appropriate if applied to a continent.
One thing that I think would actually be easier to do in the US to achieve the same thing is to cap and publicly finance campaign spending. Given the strong emphasis on free speech that the US has it might be simpler to go the reverse route. If 'money is speech', even out the playing field on a financial basis.
The problem is when candidates have to take money from special interests just in order to buy enough advertising to cause anyone to have even heard of them. Provide enough public money so that candidates don't have to do that, and then candidates won't have to do that.
You forget that there is never enough money or enough advertising. All the money comes from "special interest groups" except if is provided by the government. Of course people "hear" the candidates...it's just that the candidates want a 24/7 audience, lately they have whole media corporations delivering the message for them. As we know most of the media organisations are now partisan (either by choice or by obligation). Maybe little regulation wouldn't hurt to give a chance to the little guy who can't afford to buy a media corporation?
Yes there is. That's the point. Candidates regularly defeat better-funded opponents because there is a threshold of exposure past which the voters have heard what there is to hear from both candidates and more spending has diminishing returns.
> Of course people "hear" the candidates
No they don't. Can you name all of the candidates running for the Democratic nomination this year? First try to off the top of your head. Now here's a list:
https://www.politico.com/2020-election/president/democratic-...
How many of the ones you missed have less than $5M right now vs. more than that? Pretty good correlation, right? Yet I doubt your preference between Sanders vs. Biden has that much to do with which of them has more money, because they both have more than the threshold amount needed to make you aware of their positions.
> Maybe little regulation wouldn't hurt to give a chance to the little guy who can't afford to buy a media corporation?
How is it supposed to help the little guy who can't afford to buy a media corporation to pass a law restricting the little guy from buying political advertising, meanwhile the people who can afford to buy a media corporation carry on doing so as ever?
There's an interesting study out there (I'll dig it up later if I find it), that finds that the average American has virtually no influence or voice on what is discussed in media. There is nothing civic or egalitarian about American media or politics any more, it's no surprise that it appears like a cynical spectacle. It is indeed all advertisers, famous people, full-time twitter agitators, and Fox and CNN.
The irony here is I think that the social platforms actually could be used to authentically promote common voices if they were designed with that commitment in mind. If the rules don't change for the owners, I don't see it happening.
Conversely, targeted advertisement lets you bombard people with certain inclinations with ads that nudge them to behave in a certain way. That isn't free speech, its targeted manipulation. The targeting is whats important here. For selling goods and services, its fine. For selling leaders or tarnishing leaders, its evil.
Allow opt-in targeting by allowing classified ads, old-school newspaper and Computer Shopper style. Otherwise I think it is now pretty clear the cost is too high.
The point is that it costs more to promote if you can't buy advertising, which increases the advantage of those with a boatload of money. The people who own Fox News or Facebook would still get to decide what everybody sees but then someone who disagrees with them couldn't even buy advertising to air their competing ideas.
The person with zero dollars has zero voice either way. The question is whether someone with thousands of dollars should be able to get their message in front of the relevant people, or only someone with billions of dollars.
> Conversely, targeted advertisement lets you bombard people with certain inclinations with ads that nudge them to behave in a certain way. That isn't free speech, its targeted manipulation. The targeting is whats important here. For selling goods and services, its fine. For selling leaders or tarnishing leaders, its evil.
Suppose Big Oil wants to build a pipeline in your back yard. They're going to have your neighbor's house seized through eminent domain (or maybe yours), then install a big ugly pipe that will reduce your property value and forevermore be carrying flammable poisonous carcinogenic petroleum that could at any time leak out into your groundwater. You have no idea that this is in the works and won't know until it's too late unless somebody tells you about it right now.
I live a hundred miles from you along the same planned pipeline and I don't want it, so I get together all the people I can find and pool our money to buy issue ads to notify everyone in the path of the pipeline that it's going to happen if we don't get together and oppose it. We can't afford to buy nation-wide untargeted ads, but we can afford to target the people who live right near the planned pipeline and have views that make it likely they'll help us oppose it.
Is this to be prohibited in your opinion? What do you suggest those people do instead in that case?
What you're missing is that all viewpoints you'll ever see are intrinsically those of someone with the money to promote their voice.
Suppose you have an idea in your head and you want to get it out there. The first thing you have to do is express that idea. Write it down or create a video etc. That takes time, which is an opportunity cost. If it takes you an hour, that's an hour you couldn't spend working for money, which means that somebody who has to spend that time working for money doesn't have the time to express their idea.
On top of that, the more time you spend polishing your expression, the more convincing you can make it, so right off the bat there is a direct relationship between time/money and speech.
Then you need to get people to look at it. If all you do is write a document that sits in a drawer in your house, nobody will ever see it. So you need to spend more time distributing your idea, or get other people who are willing to spend their time distributing it.
Political advertising is just paying a third party to do that for you. It costs less than hiring a staff of people to promote the idea "organically" (otherwise it would be poor value for money and nobody would pay for it), which means it enables people with less money to get their message in front of people.