Yes, but the reality also is that the UK’s free speech rights are not as robust as ours, and I personally prefer to live under the US constitutional rules rather than the UK’s.
That being said, for sake of interest, I’m curious as to how the following things are regulated in the UK:
Is a campaign sign that I make myself regulated?
What about a sign which doesn’t mention a particular candidate, but merely expresses some view, which may be that of one of the candidates?
What if I make a sign which isn’t supporting a candidate, but instead just says that they suck?
How does this all translate to digital form and social media? For websites and such?
In the US, making signs and printing flyers is also regulated as a campaign expense, if it is the campaign which is making (buying) the signs and flyers, or if it is a PAC which is doing it. Those millions of professionally printed signs saying ‘Trump/Pence’ were all campaign expenditures, assuming they were printed at the behest of the campaign or a PAC.
If an individual is doing it, however, at no cost to the campaign, it is not regulated as a campaign expense, even if the ‘individual’ is a private company that owns a printshop and decides to print a million of them just because they want Trump to win and they have the financial means to help make that happen.
At least, that’s the way I think it works. Feel free to correct.
Yes. If you do not include an imprint that is (very technically) a criminal offence.
“Election material is published material that can reasonably be regarded as intended to influence voters
to vote for or against a political party or a category of candidates”
Pretty clearly this is included.
My understanding is that this counts as expenditure, but none of the other rules (imprints etc.) apply.
I’m sure you find this draconian, and I appreciate the argument that it’s corruptible and any attempt to introduce something similar under the Trump administration could be immediately disastrous.
The result in terms of signs is people tend to display officially party-produced signs rather than making their own.
At the moment the main controversy over these rules is that they appear to be applied selectively in respect of the Brexit referendum - as far as I can tell the Brexit and Remain campaigns breached them in very similar ways - but only the Brexit campaign is being investigated. The system is certainly no panacea. It does keep us from being barraged by a constant stream of political advertising though!
All I can say about this argument is that I really miss the Fairness Doctrine and equal time rules. Not that they matter much in the online world. But I think they might’ve prevented the scourge that is Fox “News” and Sinclair’s shenaningans.
Nah, they don’t at all. You just get weak ass foils.
Garbage like Tucker Carlson’s show would pass all those old rules, because he has opposing voices on every show. They’re just generally idiots, designed to make the opposing side look bad.
I honestly can’t believe people actually watch his garbage. His face…so punchable. His views are so repugnant. It’s hard to imagine people like Carlson and Hannity exist in this world.
Did the fairness doctrine and equal time rule ever apply to cable? For some reason I thought both were broadcast media rules for television and radio. The fairness doctrine is about providing public interest material, and the equal time rule is about equal access by opposing candidates.
What’s notable is that the Courts upheld these rules repeatedly, largely on the grounds that the medium (a broadcast frequency) was the property of the people to which no individual entity had a right to use; that the people granted use of the frequency to an individual with the requirement that the individual use it in a manner consistent with the public good.
The fairness doctrine is gone because the Reagan administration killed it, though no doubt if they hadn’t it would have been struck down by a conservative Court by now. But the equal time rule is I think still in place and still binds broadcast networks; though there are many exceptions for talk shows, etc, and it has never applied to cable media.
You may be right, but nothing like Fox News ever developed in the broadcast media space. Hard to believe the equal time rule had nothing to do with that.
Good summary of the rules. I’ve never seen a personally made sign in the UK!
Given we only really know about spending breaches following an investigation, it’s sort of hard to tell. I’ve got a bit more faith in our institutions than you do.
This isn’t just liberal stupidity. This might be liberal evilness.
Because, as was very well covered by actual lawyers all over the internet yesterday when it was first suggested that citizens try filing their own charges with the DC circuit…
It’s either crashingly stupid, in which case, do better.
Or…somewhere along the line, someone is making money by being willfully deceptive.
I have no idea if Kavanaugh’s statements approach perjury. I sort of gather that they may not. But if someone’s filing a referral on it, it will be someone associated with the US government.
I’m going to have to agree: He looks vastly better with the beard.
I am put in mind of a comment my daughter made to me when I grew my beard last year: “It looks really good Daddy. Anything that covers up your face is good.”
