Like Causes?

Install the App
TRY NOW

house Bill H.R. 367

Should the Source Information From Political Ads be Listed Online?

Argument in favor

Every election cycle there are outlandish political attack ads that distort the truth. Requiring ad sponsors to make their source content publicly available may spare the public from so many attack ads.

BTSundra's Opinion
···
01/15/2016
This makes it harder for people to continue misinforming the population. We deserve correct information.
Like (53)
Follow
Share
AndrewGVN's Opinion
···
01/15/2016
This is a must. Donald Trump used footage from the Morocco border and portrayed it as being the Mexicans. Prime example of how politicians are spreading lies, and their "sources" should be cited.
Like (35)
Follow
Share
Moni's Opinion
···
01/16/2016
Seems like a no brainer. I have to cite stuff on my essays.
Like (22)
Follow
Share

Argument opposed

The only way a website with political ads and their source information can tamp down malicious attack ads is if people actually use the site. It seems unlikely that many people would use this FEC resource.

David's Opinion
···
01/15/2016
Ads that lie will provide equally bogus resource data. Fix the problem by banning all political ads as a pollution of the public's airways.
Like (7)
Follow
Share
Steve's Opinion
···
01/16/2016
I do agree that the sources should be online! However, this does NOT need to be a Govt housing for these sources!!
Like (5)
Follow
Share
Wayne's Opinion
···
10/13/2016
While I would like to see something done about false claims in any ads, my major problem with this is The Who would be checking these ads. I have lost faith in the government to act in any way than to spread the current administrations views, this steams from the e-mail scandal where the justice department currently controlled by the Democratic President in power refuses to charge the front running democratic nominee for having top secret information on an unsecured private server. This is a federal offense and should have brought charges. It was like saying we know you robbed the bank cause we see it on video but no reasonable prosecutor would bring this case to trial. What!?! That is where you know someone is protecting someone! So this same type of government could in all probability say one ad is bogus cause the source is not reliable enough and allow ads for the current President or his party candidates. This is just a bad idea based on who will be in charge of fact checking.
Like (3)
Follow
Share
    This makes it harder for people to continue misinforming the population. We deserve correct information.
    Like (53)
    Follow
    Share
    Ads that lie will provide equally bogus resource data. Fix the problem by banning all political ads as a pollution of the public's airways.
    Like (7)
    Follow
    Share
    This is a must. Donald Trump used footage from the Morocco border and portrayed it as being the Mexicans. Prime example of how politicians are spreading lies, and their "sources" should be cited.
    Like (35)
    Follow
    Share
    Seems like a no brainer. I have to cite stuff on my essays.
    Like (22)
    Follow
    Share
    There are no security reasons for secrecy in general politics so yes. If you're willing to say it be willing to back it up with open verifiable sources, not whispers from the shadows that for all I know could be the voices in your own head.
    Like (7)
    Follow
    Share
    Transparency is a must when politics are involved. From attack ads to government departments, lies need to stop. This will be a perfect tool to ensure the people are bombarded with blatant lies.
    Like (6)
    Follow
    Share
    I do agree that the sources should be online! However, this does NOT need to be a Govt housing for these sources!!
    Like (5)
    Follow
    Share
    While I would like to see something done about false claims in any ads, my major problem with this is The Who would be checking these ads. I have lost faith in the government to act in any way than to spread the current administrations views, this steams from the e-mail scandal where the justice department currently controlled by the Democratic President in power refuses to charge the front running democratic nominee for having top secret information on an unsecured private server. This is a federal offense and should have brought charges. It was like saying we know you robbed the bank cause we see it on video but no reasonable prosecutor would bring this case to trial. What!?! That is where you know someone is protecting someone! So this same type of government could in all probability say one ad is bogus cause the source is not reliable enough and allow ads for the current President or his party candidates. This is just a bad idea based on who will be in charge of fact checking.
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    Maybe then they couldn't just MAKE STUFF UP!!
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    Hell yeah.
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    I doubt that this bill will be effective, but it's one step in the right direction
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    This just makes sense. It helps voters to be more informed.
    Like (2)
    Follow
    Share
    False advertising is serious and we should have this information at hand.
    Like (2)
    Follow
    Share
    Of course, especially due to the fact that this is not only one of the most crucial elections in United States history but additionally we currently have two separate candidates from two opposing parties left in the race. Political ads is nearly a similarity to the act of propaganda. Hey, propaganda although can be distributed to promote a positive manner. Propaganda and political ads that are exploited to devalue an opposing ideology and convince desperate citizens has always been a significant factor in the past. World war two, the aftermath of Pearl Harbor, Even Sparta And Athens! And a plethora of more. Propaganda was a manner in which typically large government and bureaucracies would bluff to there own citizens to promote hatred of another ethic group, nationality, political forces or figures, etc. Surprisingly, a majority of propaganda was just bluffs as leverage to in a way hypnotize ignorant citizens. To avoid harsh and bluffing matters of political ads we must provide a source. It's a matter of having a self explanatory mindset in this proposal! If political campaigns began to incorporate sources throughout their ads it would develop strong justifications that can't be refuted. Let's take a trip back to schooling "professors and teachers" always prioritize that you should support your claim (weather it's a source, primary source document, or quote from a novel, article, book) by revealing evidence that is a recipe for a argument that is concise and objective. As a brief source to unleash some of the most significant universal political ads and propaganda I highly suggest taking a glance here: http://www.emlii.com/795f0d22/25-Most-Powerful-Propaganda-Posters-That-Made-All-The-Difference, thank you for your time.
    Like (2)
    Follow
    Share
    I pity the opposition. Read a book or something, gain some common sense at least.
    Like (2)
    Follow
    Share
    A resounding yes. Money in politics, distorting the truth, or outright lying are the biggest problem facing America today. Citizens have the right to know who are sponsoring ads so they can better determine the agenda behind them.
    Like (2)
    Follow
    Share
    Full disclosure of all political information is a must.
    Like (2)
    Follow
    Share
    The burden shouldn't be on politifact it should be on the politician
    Like (2)
    Follow
    Share
    If you make a claim politically, in an ad or elsewhere. Providing a way to show the voters how you established the idea and why you believe it is essential. At least it is if your honest.
    Like (2)
    Follow
    Share
    Ads are partisan, and so the source of information should be publicized to reveal whether the "facts" are biased.
    Like (1)
    Follow
    Share
    MORE