On the incumbency issue – I think the incumbency advantage is amplified more by TV advertising. The ruling party uses government advertising to make its case – and that should be banned too.

No, I don’t think banning political advertising on TV hands control to the media – it focuses the campaign on the press, on outdoor advertising and now on the internets.

What can happen on TV is a series of set speeches by politicians, addresses to constituents. A common idea.

Much as I hate political advertising – indeed all advertising – it would obviously be unworkable to ban it. For a start, Fox is just a 24/7 ad for the GOP. Some would say that the ABC is a long ad for the Greens. It is just impossible to define what a political ad is. And we sure don’t want to stop people talking about politics.

The problem is not that politicians can receive donations in exchange for favourable treatment. The problem is that they have the power to grant favourable treatment.

Yeah, yeah. Bring on the anarchy/corporate overlords/whatever. Grow the f**k up.

As usual PJ O’Rourke summed it up best: “When legislation is passed to regulate buying and selling, the first thing to be bought and sold are the legislators”.

Your choice then ends up with the media potentially holding the keys to office. Id that what you want to happen?

The arguments against political advertising are

a) it wastes a lot of money on an arms race between pollies

b) the cost shuts out smaller parties

c) it reduces policy to sound bites – why do you think “tuff on crume’ got to be so important?

d) it demeans the whole political process.

It’s not worth having; politicians actually behave worse than they really are; they do have an effect in defining the issues by a nagging drumbeat of repeated slogans.

But aren’t you proving that you know the difference between what is crap and what isn’t with your recent comment?

If the ad maker makes a bad ad they are in danger of throwing off their target audience.

Take the recent ads by Bracks attempting to paint Baileau as a dishonest, Toorak living ( he doesn’t) silver spoon fed creep. It isn’t resonating with the audience I think. They have made a big mistake with these ads because Ted doesn’t come across like that.

On the other had the libs ad plastering the lie about the Freeway tolls does hit home because it reminds people of the lie.

It is important we get these messages….certainly worth listening to.

Could you explain to us this corporate thing of yours Sj. I’m really interested in getting to the bottom of this as you have got me worried about all these corporatists pulling these strings. tell us….

Our toleration of public lying slowly increases, and this deceitful crap is part of the reason.

“Chop down a tree, help the forest….”

Etc.

So you’re saying we are in a state of corporatism these days. How so Sj?

I’m very interested to learn about this new status we find ourselves in.

There’s plenty of ads that could be useful, Sj. Even for you. Take the ad I have been listening to everytime I jump in a car. The ad tells how men ( possibly someone like you) may find it hard to get an erection. It’s selling an inhaler that a person could use (possibly you) that helps get a hard on in no time.

Now someone who may not have known that ( possibly you) would find such an ad very useful as you wouldn’t have to go without the enjoyment of having sex. It’s not a pill that you may have tried previously that takes a long time in get it on, so to speak. This inhaler is supposed to work immediately which allows both you and your partner instant impulsive gratification.

That’s a great example of an informatioive ad that could you or anyone else with rerection issues may solve with as little as oistenign to a radio ad.

What is corporate feudalism?

Corporatism.

It may be worthwhile explaining what this comment means to us normal people.

“I don’t really see corporate run feudalism as being positive.”

What is corporate feudalism? Is this an example of someoen throwing a bunch of words together hoping it rings a bell in people’s minds?

Nothing circular there, Chris.

Actually, your argument relies on a false distinction that you’ve made.

You say that a political party is a voluntary association which should be allowed to take money from whoever it wishes, whereas a judge has a contract with an employer.

In essence, you say that political parties are principals but judges are merely agents.

That runs counter to the concept of representative democracy. Elected politicians are supposed to be agents, not principals.

As for the positive reasons, I think JC has summed them up quite while already.

I don’t really see corporate run feudalism as being positive.

Ban political advertising on television. By anyone.

But then you need to define what exactly political advertising is. Are ads explaining the government’s latest changes to Medicare or Workchoices political or informational? What about ads explaining a change to the road rules – political or not?

But why? Do you want the stations to simply filter it for us? No thanks. You are automatically giving the media far more power than they deserve.

“Ideas are not soap powder. A vision for the future is not a fizzy drink.”

But not all advertising is done by Coke. Is see lots of good smart ads that tempt me.

“Can you think of a single television advertisement that was actually constructive in forming opinions?”

Yes. Often.

“We came close to this position but the Dems had another one of their unfortunate brainfarts and decided it was an infringement of free speech.”

Well, it was one of the few times they did the right thing.

I want to hear from the parties. Even when they’re are trashing each other. its’s informative.

Advertising is a great thing as it allows the message to get across from the buyer to the seller. Turn it off if you don’t like it, but you shouldn’t infringe on my rights to listen to advertising if you don’t like it.

Ideas are not soap powder. A vision for the future is not a fizzy drink.

Can you think of a single television advertisement that was actually constructive in forming opinions?

We came close to this position but the Dems had another one of their unfortunate brainfarts and decided it was an infringement of free speech.

Seriously, it was a bad moment for democracy, which at one stroke even made it harder for them to get elected.

How could you equate bestiality to homsexuality? It’s another shocking admission from you.

Back to the story. Look, you need to distinguish what is a bribe and what is a political donation. The act and intent is different. Handing over money to a judge to pervert the course of justice is a crime.

A political donation on the other hand helps a politician communicate his message to the voters. The money for this should never come from tax proceeds. What you are suggesting is that we pay ourselves to advertise to ourselves the political message an aspiring politician wants to get across.

Corruption is there because there is so much money floating round the system. Reduce the treasure and you reduce the potential for corruption.

Jc’s assertions that a ban “tramples on the right of free association” and “it is best to deregulate the whole thing” are a case in point. There is a problem of public servants serving the donors rather than the public, which is the issue to engage with – as Patrick has done. Argue that the costs would outwiegh the benefits or that it would set up perverse and unintended incentives. I will listen. But your comment that bribing judges is bad because it is illegal is completely circular. Really. Try to do better.

I remember getting myself into trouble at a party once in an argument about gay marriage. The argument being used – I forget what it was – applied with equal force to the notion that you should be able to marry an animal. Before you know it I was being accused of equating homosexuality with bestiality. But the whole crux of my position was that bestiality is not really OK whereas homosexuality is. So if you are going to come up with an argument in favour of homosexual marriage it should distinguish between the two cases.