Posts Tagged ‘ads’

chuck-nancy-matrixk copy

 

I haven’t heard of this “Free Speech Institute” before, but they seem to have their shit together. Recall Pelosi and friends are the ones making it illegal to boycott Israeli products or even talk about it. Something to investigate.

Analysis of H.R. 1 (Part One)
&

ACLU Concurs: ACLU LETTER TO HOUSE RULES COMMITTEE ON H.R. 1

 

Executive Summary

Specifically, H.R. 1 would:

  • Unconstitutionally regulate speech that mentions a federal candidate or elected official at any time under a severely vague, subjective, and broad standard that asks whether the speech “promotes,” “attacks,” “opposes,” or “supports” (“PASO”) the candidate or official.
  • Force groups to file burdensome and likely duplicative reports with the Federal Election Commission (“FEC”) if they sponsor ads that are deemed to PASO the president or members of Congress in an attempt to persuade those officials on policy issues.
  • Compel groups to declare on these so-called “campaign-related disbursement” reports that their ads are either “in support of or in opposition” to the elected official mentioned, even if their ads do neither. This form of compulsory speech and forcing organizations to declare their allegiance to or against public officials is unconscionable and unconstitutional.
  • Force groups to publicly identify certain donors on these reports for issue ads and on the face of the ads themselves. Faced with the prospect of being inaccurately associated with what, by law, would be considered (unjustifiably, in many or most instances) “campaign” ads in FEC reports and disclaimers, many donors will choose simply not to give to nonprofit groups.
  • Subject far more issue ads to burdensome disclaimer requirements, which will coerce groups into truncating their substantive message and make some advertising, especially online, practically impossible.
  • Focus public attention on the individuals and donors associated with the sponsoring organizations rather than on the communications’ substantive message, thereby exacerbating the politics of personal destruction and further coarsening political discourse.
  • Force organizations that make grants to file their own reports and publicly identify their own donors if an organization is deemed to have “reason to know” that a donee entity has made or will make “campaign-related disbursements.” This vague and subjective standard will greatly increase the legal costs of vetting grants and many groups will simply end grant programs.
  • Likely eliminate the ability of many employees to make voluntary contributions through employee-funded PACs, which give employees a voice in the political process with respect to issues that affect their livelihoods.
  • Effectively prohibit many domestic subsidiaries, and perhaps most corporations with even a single foreign shareholder with voting shares, from making independent expenditures, contributions to super PACs, or contributions to candidates for state and local office, thus usurping the laws in more than half of the states that allow such contributions.This appears to be a thinly veiled artifice to overturn Citizens United and to unconstitutionally accomplish by legislation what congressional Democrats failed to achieve by constitutional amendment in 2014.
  • Disproportionately burden the political speech rights of corporations, thereby ending the long-standing parity in the campaign finance law between corporations and unions.
  • Increase regulation of the online speech of American citizens while purporting to address the threat of Russian propaganda.
  • Expand the universe of regulated online political speech (by Americans) beyond paid advertising to include, apparently, communications on groups’ or individuals’ own websites and e-mail messages.
  • Regulate speech (by Americans) about legislative issues by expanding the definition of “electioneering communications” – historically limited to large-scale TV and radio campaigns targeted to the electorate in a campaign for office – to include online advertising, even if the ads are not targeted in any way at a relevant electorate.
  • Impose what is effectively a new public reporting requirement on (American) sponsors of online issue ads by expanding the “public file” requirement for broadcast, cable, and satellite media ads to many online platforms. The public file requirements would compel some of the nation’s leading news sources to publish information, which is likely unconstitutional.Both advertisers and online platforms would be liable for providing and maintaining the information required to be kept in these files, which would increase the costs of online advertising, especially for low-cost grassroots movements. Some of these online outlets may decide to discontinue accepting such ads due to the expense of complying with the requirements.The “public file” also may subject (American) organizers of contentious but important political causes like “Black Lives Matter” and the Tea Party to harassment by opponents or hostile government officials monitoring the content, distribution, and sponsorship of their activities.
  • Make broadcast, cable, satellite, and Internet media platforms liable if they allow political advertising by prohibited speakers to slip through, thereby driving up the costs of political advertising, especially for online ads where compliance costs are relatively high.
  • Impose inflexible disclaimer requirements on online ads that may make many forms of small, popular, and cost-effective ads off-limits for (American) political advertisers.

5ac3a15adda4c8c47e8b45a9.jpg

 

On every significant metric, it is difficult to square the data with the dramatic conclusions that have been drawn.
New Studies Show Pundits Are Wrong About Russian Social-Media Involvement in US Politics

It’s telling that those who are so certain Russian social-media posts affected the 2016 election never cite the posts that they think actually helped achieve that end.

…It was mostly unrelated to the 2016 election; microscopic in reach, engagement, and spending; and juvenile or absurd in its content. This leads to the inescapable conclusion, as the New Knowledge study acknowledges, that “the operation’s focus on elections was merely a small subset” of its activity.

They even tried the absurd argument that the number of black voters declined in 2016, and so that proves: Russians!!!

Nothing to do with not having a black presidential candidate, and instead being force-fed a heinous war criminal who once called black teenagers “Super-Predators?”

Hillary Clinton has jumped the shark. And she should be left in the tank.

29AD50C000000578-3126728-Fanclub_Crowds_wearing_Donald_branded_t_shirts_crammed_into_the_-a-9_1434470839934.jpg

 

These people are your neighbors…

 

MOTHER-JONES-CHEVRON

Are you a “doer?”

What would the actual Mother Jones think of this latest development?

I guess I’m doin’ right now: Fuck you, Chevron.

PS

So, to be fair, I went and looked for editorial influence on the subject of “climate change,” which I didn’t immediately find. What I did find, however, was quite a bit worse! Commercials for military recruiting appear in the middle of articles at Mother Jones today.

motherjones-navy

I have to get out of this insane madhouse.

The “alternative” media is now helping feed children into the military machine. Not much of an alternative, is it?

PPS

Fits seamlessly with Goldman Fucking Sachs infiltrating PBS broadcasting. Hey — remember Goldman Sachs? Rolling Stone magazine can fill you in:

The Great American Bubble Machine

Goldman Sachs has engineered every major market manipulation since the Great Depression — and they’re about to do it again

corruption_347102_7

Political Ad Spending to Hit $11.4B in 2016

Bribery

Corruption

Plutocracy

Oligarchy

Malfeasance

Betrayal

Fraud

Kakistocracy

Organized Crime

Political advertising is expected to reach a record $11.4 billion in 2016, up 20% from the previous presidential election year, according to a new report from Borrell Associates.

google-evil (1)

After the advertising scandal on Antiwar.com we see more evidence that Google is directly attacking WeAreChange.

“They said it’s sensitive content.”
-Luke R.

dont-be-evil-google1
How Google Adsense Is Censoring WeAreChange and Independent Media

dead-iraqi1

Google Disables All Ads on Antiwar.com
Is Google now an arm of the U.S. State Department?

On 3/18/15 we received a note from Google Adsense informing us that all ads for our site had been disabled. Why? Because of this page showing the horrific abusescommitted by U.S. troops in Iraq at Abu Ghraib.

This page has been up for 11 years. During all that time Google Adsense has been running ads on our site – but as Washington gets ready to re-invade Iraq, and in bombing, killing, and abusing more civilians, they suddenly decide that their “anti-violence” policy, which prohibits “disturbing material,” prohibits any depiction of violence committed by the U.S. government and paid for with your tax dollars. This page is the third-most-visited page in our history, getting over 2 million page views since it was posted.