this post was submitted on 23 Jul 2023
68 points (100.0% liked)
Politics
10176 readers
19 users here now
In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.
Guidelines for submissions:
- Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
- Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
- Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
- Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
- Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I swear I thought that you couldnt run pieces on people that were running for prez with out some kinda write off from the campaign. But that could have been a fever dream
How could that be legal?
That would be the end of the free press.
But yeah a wet dream for politicians.
I thought it was only while they were running, it was the reason there was limited bad press for trump (this is why I recall it, but again this could all be a fever dream) as he stated he was running for prez VERY early so that his camp had to sign off on opinion pieces and other things, havent had a chance to look it up and see where I got it from yet.
You're probably thinking of the McCain-Feingold Act limiting political media from being used as a loophole to do an end run around campaign finance limitations.
But don't worry, SCOTUS overturned that and decided that unlimited dark money in campaigns was just fine after a certain organization called Citizens United complained about not being allowed to air their Hillary hit piece:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary:_The_Movie#:~:text=Hillary%3A%20The%20Movie%20is%20a,non%2Dprofit%20organization%20Citizens%20United.
It may have been hinted that it was used in that way, what I think was the end goal was the fairness of all things, and this was going to give trump a lot more cheap air time for himself when ever they had any mention of democrats jockeying for office but I am still looking into the relevant laws on this and trying to find the reddit thread that gave me this thought to start with.
And to those downvoting me, thats fine. But also understand just like I said here and in the DM's I wrote back, I never claimed I knew this to be 100% true, so calm down just a bit.
There was loads of bad press when he ran. I think you're misremembering.
very well could be. I know the line I recall was for the reason that he became a candidate so early in the 2020 election cycle and there was something about it protecting him from criticism, maybe he had to be allowed a rebuttal if they did those things while he was a candidate. Still looking into the laws that govern political people and the media, it seems that cable stations have different rules then those that apply to over the air stations (which cable news stations use to their benefit but this would also apply here with showtime, so even if there was something to the thing I am thinking of this is still odd, maybe it is just they dont have the war chest to play in court and dont wanna get bit right now)