During the 2013 City Council elections, there was more money spent on independent mailers than all of the candidates’ expenditures combined. A glaring loophole in the campaign finance law led to negative ads that were at times attacks on candidates' personal lives, backgrounds, or beliefs, councilmembers said Wednesday before a committee hearing on legislation to ban these ads.
“We want candidates to own up to what they’re saying,” said councilmember Dan Garodnick, who is introducing a bill that will require every ad or communication paid for or authorized by a candidate to disclose that information.
Councilmember Brad Lander is introducing another bill that will require all independent ads and communications relating to local elections to make clear it is funded by an outside group, and include the name of the organization’s owner, CEO, and top three donors. While many of the ads were hostile, the only information voters had about where the information was coming from was the vague and positive sounding organization names, Lander said.
12 comments:
Stinky? Ya think? Valloney Baloney hsppening in Vallonia? NOT ON YOUR LIFE!!!
this is a great bill,something that should have been done immediately after the citizen's united decision.
maligning is not free speech.
Just look at John Liu's attack ads on Tony Avella. Besides those ads contained not one fact (I guess in this day and age you can say anything and put it in print without facts or proof and it just automatically becomes true).
Then you had no idea where the ad was coming from and since Liu's name was like font minus 20, most would have not even seen his name attached to it nor did you know who funded the ad or produced it.
The City Council member seems to have forgotten a slight problem with the proposed law, a thing called the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
And, yet, Austin Shafran was the target of the ads last year when he was running against Vallone - now he is John Liu's spokesman as the ads attack Tony Avella.
The City Council member seems to have forgotten a slight problem with the proposed law, a thing called the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Maybe I missed the details, but it did not sound like the City Council was proposing to regulate or abridge the content of the speech, only the anonymity. You can say anything what you want - but you have to wear a name tag. Many newspapers will not print a letter to the editor unless it is signed.
The same requirements should apply to anonymous bloggers.
Someone seems to be confused between activities regulated by campaign finance laws and things posted for free on blogger. Duh.
Why should I wear a name tag for advocating a political position?
Nothing in the first amendment says I must identify myself to proclaim an opinion.
Newspapers have nothing to do with this issue.
A young Andrew Cuomo came up with the classic anonymous attack flyer "Vote for Cuomo, Not the Homo" in 1977. Ed Koch got elected mayor. Old friend Hugh Carey appointed Mario Cuomo Secretary of State, and the rest is history.
Vallone will have a back up career when his city council career is up.
It will not pass constitutional muster. You feudal casuists just don't get that.
Post a Comment