Would you vote for a law that bans negative campaign ads?

Answer 1

I would vote for verification of facts.

But, no I would not vote for a ban on negative ads. One mans negative ad is another mans truth.

They back fire for many anyway. I see them as smoke screens. "So, you have nothing positive to say about yourself so you sling some mud to distract from your lack of purpose."

Answer 2

If I were an American, I'd vote for a law that copied what the UK law says - no political TV and radio advertising allowed at all, positive or negative. It levels out the playing field between the parties and makes the campaign a lot less negative and a lot more about the actual issues than USA elections seem to be.

Answer 3

Absolutely not! The First Amendment guarantees Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press, Freedom of Expression. To ban such ads, as distasteful as they are, would be taking away more rights... So many have already been stepped on. Negative Campaign ads are part of the game, and The Constitution. That's all there is to it.

Answer 4

Is the problem the ads or the people that buy into them? Or, even worse, the people that pay for them?

I think we should have no campaign ads. We have the technology to provide time to candidates in many other more meaningful ways. They could each have their own channel if we wanted to do that. And that would provide meaningful campaign finance reform because people wouldn't have to raise $100M to get the message out.

EDIT: I like the idea of impeaching those whose ads later turn out to be false but I think that just may become a quagmire of politically motivated hearings.

Answer 5

Here in the UK the whole election campaign is somewhat different - on the whole it is a rather political affair.

In the US though, it seems like a bad Jerry Springer slander mongering hate fest, if it weren't for the fact that America are a huge world power with a lot of international influence the whole affair would be rather funny.

Answer 6

No. But I would support criminal penalties if the allegations proved to be false, with automatic impeachment if the slanderous candidate won the election.

Wouldn't stop it, but it'd mean having to tell the truth--maybe it would stop negative ads. How many pols can actually bring themselves to tell the truth?

Has anyone else noticed that Republicans only support the 1st Ammendment when the issue is the Right of MONEY to talk?

Answer 7

No, that infringes on the first amendment which allows free speech.
The limit would be if the negative ads were slanderous, then they should be covered by current laws.

Answer 8

super question. i think of a few electorate might spend greater time to think of over to make particular their vote became ultimate, although i've got faith adverse advertisements make some human beings bounce to conclusions. We do be attentive to ways the government works we merely decide directly to ignore approximately what we'd like. case in point the gas tax holiday is a foul concept, all of us be attentive to it yet no longer many human beings would be laid low with it because of the fact the have the incorrect priorities for the standards of a god president. all of us be attentive to genuine from incorrect all of us be attentive to what's a gimmick and what's genuine. regrettably all of us merely decide directly to work out what we'd like.

Answer 9

No. I'd rather vote against positive campaigns because most of them are lies and negatives are truths

Answer 10

In a heartbeat. And I'd make the penalty immediate and permanent disqualification from running for ANY public office.