Increase effective prices for broadcasting commercial time.

Aug 2010
257
40
Cliffside Park, NJ
#1
Increase effective prices for broadcasting commercial time.

Many of us are concerned about the huge and growing expenditures for seeking elected offices. I suppose purchasing electronic broadcasting time or space on internet screens is the most expensive single items for national and state-wide campaigns. because that's the most advantageous use of campaign dollars.

Political influence is being auctioned, powers' further gravitating to the wealthiest bidders and reducing the populist character of our democratic republic.

A message may not mention the names of political candidates, parties, drafts of laws or regulations proposed or passed by our governments' legislators, but still be an effective political message. Government cannot and should not attempt determining messages' extents of political purposes.

I doubt if legal and effective federal regulation of political financing could be drafted, but if we succeeded to enact such effective USA laws, they'd surly also sooner lead to our transformation from democracy to fascism.

Purchase of electronic broadcasting services should not be a tax deductible item. If the political services cannot be effectively regulated, we should not enable those expenses to be commingled with commercial expenses and in effect be government subsidized.
[Tax deductions currently allowed for creation broadcasting content, (e.g. scripts, art, performances, etc.) would continue to be allowed. There's legal precedent for requiring that a category of expense, (such as purchase of broadcasting services), be legally identified and isolated from all other billing expenses.]

This is a radical proposal. But increasing the effective prices paid for broadcasting commercial interruptions to better retain our democracy and prevent fascism, is a good bargain.

Respectfully, Supposn
 
Dec 2018
1,174
25
Tempe, AZ
#2
Purchase of electronic broadcasting services should not be a tax deductible item. If the political services cannot be effectively regulated, we should not enable those expenses to be commingled with commercial expenses and in effect be government subsidized.
A legitimate business expense is NOT a "government subsidy" - period!

If Kellogg's decides to over advertise Froot Loops, and at the end of the year they have a net profit of ZERO, thereby having to pay NO taxes, even though had they not over advertised they would have paid millions in taxes is irrelevant and therefore not a "government subsidy". Capice?
 
Aug 2010
257
40
Cliffside Park, NJ
#3
... Political influence is being auctioned, powers' further gravitating to the wealthiest bidders and reducing the populist character of our democratic republic.
A message may not mention the names of political candidates, parties, drafts of laws or regulations proposed or passed by our governments' legislators, but still be an effective political message. Government cannot and should not attempt determining messages' extents of political purposes.

I doubt if legal and effective federal regulation of political financing could be drafted, but if we succeeded to enact such effective USA laws, they'd surly also sooner lead to our transformation from democracy to fascism. … This is a radical proposal. But increasing the effective prices paid for broadcasting commercial interruptions to better retain our democracy and prevent fascism, is a good bargain. ...
A legitimate business expense is NOT a "government subsidy" - period!

If Kellogg's decides to over advertise Froot Loops, and at the end of the year they have a net profit of ZERO, thereby having to pay NO taxes, even though had they not over advertised they would have paid millions in taxes is irrelevant and therefore not a "government subsidy". Capice?
PaulSmith69, who is to determine what's a political opinion, rather than what's generally described as an “institutional” advertisement meant to promote an enterprises brand name?

It's not particularly unusual for messages ostensibly to promote an enterprises reputation, (i.e. institutional commercials) are actually the corporations' board of directors' political opinions that are basis upon which illegal tax deductions were claimed. The boards of directors then have not acted legally, but have participated in the successful commission of a crime.
Respectfully, Supposn
 
Last edited:
Apr 2019
36
1
vancouver island
#4
PaulSmith69, who is to determine what's a political opinion, rather than what's generally described as an “institutional” advertisement meant to promote an enterprises brand name?

It's not particularly unusual for messages ostensibly to promote an enterprises reputation, (i.e. institutional commercials) are actually the corporations' board of directors' political opinions that are basis upon which illegal tax deductions were claimed. The boards of directors then have not acted legally, but have participated in the successful commission of a crime.
Respectfully, Supposn
You sign of with 'respectfully', and it does seem that you are interested in a respectable conversation! So I will respectfully suggest that you're putting the cart before the horse by not dealing with the root cause of your government's complete corruption.

That which you are complaining about is a huge issue in your country but is not an issue to the same degree in other democracies. And so, the answer lies in 'socially responsible capitalism, as opposed to a capitalist system where complete control of the system has been given away to the very wealthy. In other words, there is no hope to be had in either of the two major parties!

There is a huge movement beginning by people who understand that to break the establishment's hold on your country is the direction to head. This began in the 2016 election, in which Trump promised the earth to the ordinary people, but lied. Of course no corporatist or corporate psychopath would even think of such a thing. And Bernie Sanders made the same promises but was hijacked by the Dem establishment who promoted Hillary, who was pure establishment.

I'm hoping that this forum can build on some of those ideas and become something worth other people's time to visit. And we know already that Bernie Sanders has a huge following that is causing the Dem establishment to sh-t their pants with trying to elevate an alternative candidate. This could be America's awakening and it's moment to come out of it's absolute corruption and find a new socially responsible way forward.
 
Apr 2019
36
1
vancouver island
#5
First off I'll start by telling Americans that Bernie Sanders isn't a socialist. In any other socially responsible country he would be a middle of the road capitalist. Or if anything, a little too right for any of the happiest countries in the world today. Pure socialism or pure capitalism doesn't even exist in and of the world's countries. They're all practicing a happy blend of capitalism with social or socialist policy. Or even the more socialist of the lot works with a large degree of capitalism.

When a country's ordinary middle class and poor people can't even grasp the concept of universal health care for all it's people, it becomes very difficult to start to change attitudes that cause the people to demand a fair piece of the pie.
 
Aug 2010
257
40
Cliffside Park, NJ
#7
… You sign of with 'respectfully', ... So I will respectfully suggest that you're putting the cart before the horse by not dealing with the root cause of your government's complete corruption.

That which you are complaining about is a huge issue in your country but is not an issue to the same degree in other democracies.
[The book entitled “How democracies die” is referred to within a series published by the Christian Scientist Monitor newspaper's series of articles entitled “A system under stress”.

Excerpted from: https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Polit...-showing-real-cracks?cmpid=ema::20190123&src= :
“ According to Levitsky and Ziblatt, [the book's authors], two such norms stand out as fundamental to functional democracies: mutual toleration, and institutional forbearance.

Mutual toleration means recognizing one’s adversaries as decent, patriotic, law-abiding citizens. Losers may shed tears on election night, but feel that the event is not apocalyptic. The system will remain in place; losers will win again another day.

“As commonsensical as this idea may sound, the belief that political opponents are not enemies is a remarkable and sophisticated invention,” they write].

Montgomery, it's natural to sincerely conclude what's to our own best interests is to the mutual best interests of our nation. We needn't find conspiracy behind everything and everyone that doesn't mutually share our opinions.
I'm a populist but I do not consider everything to be consequentially entirely or even partially due to corruption. I prefer that we seek solutions or improvements rather than seeking who or what to blame. Many things are differences of opinions rather than of motives.

Respectfully, Supposn
 
Aug 2010
257
40
Cliffside Park, NJ
#8
PaulSmith69, who is to determine what's a political opinion, rather than what's generally described as an “institutional” advertisement meant to promote an enterprises brand name?

It's not particularly unusual for messages ostensibly to promote an enterprises reputation, (i.e. institutional commercials) are actually the corporations' board of directors' political opinions that are basis upon which illegal tax deductions were claimed. The boards of directors then have not acted legally, but have participated in the successful commission of a crime.
Respectfully, Supposn
In my legaly unlearned opinion, the Supreme Cour's "Citizens United" decision, corporations are entitled to the entire legal rights of individual persons is not preferable or even correct.
For example: A family owned corporation cannot seek justice in small claims court and cannot be represented in court by the corpation's officers that are not lawyers. My family has found this to be to our significant financial disadvantage.

Expenditures for broadcasting corporate political opinions are now legally entitled to government tax subsidies. In my opinion, the U.S. Congress is empowered and should change this condition without resorting to a consitutional amendment.

Respectfully, Supposn
 
Last edited:

Similar Discussions