Slashdot Mirror
Candidate Ads, Coming Soon To An Inbox Near You
ooby writes "MSNBC reports that Bush and Kerry plan to shoot off a million or so emails to their closest friends. By using the Internet to distribute ads, presidential candidates believe they can reach more people using less money. I guess that's why they wrote that loophole in that awesome new spam law."
And unlike those TV ads, the videos that appear on the Internet face none of the content regulations of the 2002 campaign finance law, including the statement by the candidate of "I approved this ad" that has given some campaigns pause before launching negative political ads. Web videos have the potential to be nastier than the typical TV ad.
I don't think either campaign will be able to avoid the tempation. I also don't think the virus writers will be able to hold back either...
Happy Trails!
Erick
http://www.busyweather.com/
With all this talk about how much everyone hates spam, even legislation supporting this idea, why would a candidate want to even come close to looking like they are spamming?
i ng-the-latest-penis-enhacement-pills crowd. It almost makes sense when you consider it that way.
It seems like it's too dangerous. Although, I guess there is a reason why spammers continue to spam. They really want that walking-around-in-their-underwear-at-walmart-scop
Which would you prefer:
1. Junk mail, which has a realworld cost (printing paper means felling trees); or
2. An email, which has negligible cost and is easily disposed of by deletion?
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
In fact, it was the first thing I thought of! How will I know whether the email I got was really from the candidate who supposedly sent it?
I've made up my mind and now I've got to lie in it.
It only refers to their respective rank-and-file, I guess these people have signed up on some list to receive them.
Once again, Slashdot hypes and puffs something up to be more than it really is. No need to get worked up over "Your Rights".
Slashdot Moderation: From positive to terrible in 2 "insightful" posts.
Leave it to slashdot to have people completely overreact and blow things out of proportion. I actually see email as an effective means of campeigning.
According to the headlines, only about a million emails will be sent, and only to "close friends." That means less than 1% of the American population will see one of these emails, and I'd bet a pretty penny it won't just be in typical spam style (hint: it will actually be from a *real* address and company). The emails will probably be sent to people who have specifically given their addresses to the Republican/Democratic parties, or similar organizations that promote voting and voter education.
When it comes to campeigning, these guys are not stupid. They know people hate spam. But they also know if they use email in a legitimate fashion, it could actually help their cameign. Assuming they don't abuse this line of communication, I think it will prove beneficial in the long run.
Mailwasher Software
I just send a bogus invalid email addresses back at them.
There is no spoon or sig.
Spammers don't need you the way a candidate does. Most spammers have already annoyed most people, and expect that their emails will get deleted/filtered by 99% of people. Candidates need a large percentage of the population to support them, so campaigning in a way that loses you more people than you gain (such as spamming them) is not a Good Thing (TM).
Thank God Australia hasn't gotten this far... yet...
Slashdot - News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters, in ISO-8859-1 Has just realised that beta makes this signature redundant
IAAL
The anti-spam law was limited in scope for constitutional reasons. The bill focused on content such as obscenity which could be regulated anyway based on established legal principles.
I can't imagine the Supreme Court upholding a law that restricts people's right to political expression, the heart of what the framers intenced to protect, based on the reasoning that people find deleting the messages annoying.
Here are some legal concepts I've heard people trying to use to support anti-spam legsilation.
"Captive Audience": This concept, though related to the issue at hand, does not support anti-spam legislation. The fact that you receive the message in your inbox and then have to delete it is directly analogous to the snail-mail equivalent. Just because you have to look away when someone wears a "Fuck the Draft" jacket that offends you doesn't mean your rights have been infringed.
"Time Place and Manner": This legal concept in all likelihood does not apply here. Though it's true that mass spam creates a nuissance on the part of the receiver, laws that inhibit speech need to allow an alternative method of expression. A blanket spam ban would offer no alternatives.
Despite the fact that the current office holder has been mildly to outright friendly to the goals of us geeks
My goals are environmental protection, government regulation of corporations, universal healthcare, and civil rights.
I don't think his voting record looks that bad.
When you say "us geeks" I think you mean "me".
I think that identity verification is required by campaign finance laws. There are limits on each individual's contribution -- they need to at least make a good faith effort to enforce that.
-30-
I agree completely. This is totally analogous to the decisions wherein the Court said that political activists can come uninvited into my home and staple campaign posters to all my walls...
Oh, wait...
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
It's not just that.. somehow the American political culture is heavily bandwagony -a trend that's much less prominent in the other five or so cultures I've witnessed an election in.
The key is to have the media spin you as the likely winner. It will make you so. Kind of like if Greenspan says things are looking down, they suddenly do so because, well, Greenspan said so and it must be true so let me just put this money under my mattress.
Marxist evolution is just N generations away!
Funny. You'd sort of think all of their "close friends" already know that they're running... This will be used to drum up new contributions. It's political spam, pure and simple.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
And thanks to that mentality we will ALWAYS have a 2 party system in the US, which is little better than an Oligarcy. It is my personal belief that If all Americans voted for the candiate they truly want in office elections would turn out much differently. Unfortunately the media has brainwashed us all into believing that only the Dems and Reps matter. How often do you see any Newspaper or news show interview anyone from a non Dem/Rep party? And I'm not talking about Ross Perot, Ralph Nader, or Jesse Ventura, the only reason they were given media attention was because of their fame and their novelty, not because anyone cared to see them elected (and when the Ventura thing backfired and he DID get elected look how they treated him). People simply MUST start voting whats in their hearts and more importantly, LEAVE THE FUCKING HOUSE AND VOTE. As a Libertarian I see some problems with mandatory voting but its looking like the only way to get a real change here at home.
I think email campaign ads are a great idea from an environmental perspective. Imagine if your candidate of choice could say that he had saved 10,000 more trees than Pres. Bush--and all because of email. While I hate spam as much as the next guy, a nice, polite email from a candidate sent from a valid address would be great. I'd be more likely to vote for a candidate who spammed me (and let's be honest, this isn't really spam) than one who wasted paper on mass-mailings.
Email costs significantly less than physical mailings and is a heck of a lot easier on the environment. Seriously? Would you *rather* get a piece of card stock over an email? As an added plus, maybe this could even out unbalanced campaign contributions?
"As much as I might like that sentiment, assuming Kerry gets the democratic nomination, who are you going to vote for?"
Howabout whoever your conscience tells you would be the best person for the job?
"There's no one else to vote for who would even stand an outside shot at winning the election."
It's thinking like that that has gotten us into this mess. Voting isn't about voting for the guy you think has the best chance of winning, voting is about voting for who you think is the best person for the job.
" Basically my question boils down to, if their choice wont make or break my vote for them, is there anyway to get politicians to make a stance on something short of having lots of money for campaign contributions?"
yes, vote your conscience. Until everyone votes their conscience, we'll be stuck in this dead end game of "lesser of two evils" every time. You can write letters, have demonstrations, etc... As long as they can get elected because you'll vote for them out of fear of someone else winning, they're not going to listen to you. Why should they? The money comes from their corporate masters, I mean backers, and your vote comes from your fear of the other candidate.
I'd rather vote my conscience and see four years of some guy I think is awful, than legitimize the election of someone I think is less awful by voting for them.
Think for yourself, destroy your television.
I'm not excited about spam, but politics by email seems like it is leveling the playing field a bit.
Someone who isn't a rich, "preapproved" canidate can stand toe-to-toe in emails.....well, at least come closer to it.
Steve
They fucking voted for it or signed it. It doesn't matter that they didn't write it their actions show they agree with it.
If enough people just don't vote for either of the idiots, then maybe the people running the parties will work harder to find decent canidates however in a typical election the number of people that don't pick one of the two major parties is so small it doesn't matter.
Good point. I seriously think that today's political climate is designed to drive people away. For simplicity's sake we'll neglect the electoral college in this example. If only 10% of the electorate turns out and canidate "A" receives a majority of the total votes cast (which would be >5% of the total electorate) then canidate A wins. There is no incentive for change because someone will always win. Forget the fact that our government derives their legitamacy from the people. Most people I find aren't really aware of that and feel it is their duty to vote and support the system no matter what they're given to choose from.
In case you're wondering, I openly advocate not voting in the hopes that the current political climate will "go away" (not exist because the people no longer recognize it) and we can start with a fresh system. We did that once before remember... Think of it as a total scratch rewrite. :)
I should know better than to reply to an anonymous coward, but here we go.
If you would like a direct analogy that is exactly on point, here it is: laws already exist banning junk faxes. These laws have gotten the thumbs-up from courts, despite advertisers trying to raise First Amendment questions.
The receiver of the message necessarily bears some of the cost of the message--toner, paper, temporary loss of use of the line for fax machines; connection and bandwidth charges for spam.
The First Amendment rights of others end when they start charging me (directly or otherwise) so they can express themselves. The First Amendment guarantees one the right to speak--it doesn't guarantee that I will pay to listen.
~Idarubicin
Democracy is about choice. As it stands right now, the only way I have to show my displeasure in both viable options (republican and democrat) is not to vote -- which is undemocratic.
Where do I begin? Yes, democracy requires choice, but it doesn't require more choices. The problem with US elections is that we are presented with a choice between a Republican or a Democrat, both of whom hold positions so close together on so many issues that there is no difference. That's because deviating from a certain small territory throws the election to the other party. The choice we are never given is whether to take powers away from the government entirely. We only get to choice who will wield them.
Having only Democrats and Republicans to choose from isn't undemocratic. It just emphasizes the flaws in democracy. Personally, I support a constitutional democracy/monarchy/republic/whatever. Constitutionally limit the power of government to defense, police and courts. Create a separation of powers between branches that don't ever answer to each other. And then the only differences between the choices of people to run it will be simple. First, are they actually competent? Second, are they corrupt, handing contracts to buddies? Since incompetence won't benefit anyone, it should be avoidable. And since corruption benefits a few at the expense of all the tax-payers, there's an incentive to keep it to a minimum.
The only vote that you thow away is one where you vote for someone because they could win. If you don't think that he or she is the best, you are only encouraging policies that you don't believe in.
The lesser of two evils is still evil.
Great, you've rationalized your inability to make hard choices.
Abstension is just as much a part of the democratic process as is casting a vote
There isn't any penalty specified in the constitution if voter turnout is low- 10% percent turnout doesn't make the winner 10% president. Therefore, the only result you and people like you not not voting is that no major party will care about things you and people like you care about.
The thing is, in a free country there's bound to be a huge diversity of incompatible world views- the chance that you and a candidate or party agree 100% is pretty low. Refusing to choose is just a cop-out.
If the incumbent is a corrupt incompetent moron who can't string two unrehearsed sentences together, and the other candidate may be no better, what do you do? Kick the incumbent out- at least the guy coming in will be a little more humble and thoughtful about whether they're doing the right thing if they know the public will judge them harshly.
Not necessarily. It a perfect world, a utopian dream if you will, you would vote for who you think is the best man/woman for the job. However this is a pipe dream and won't produce the results you want. We might all agree with what a person like Lieberman says and we might like a lot of what Sharpton says (but maybe not all of it) but we know there isn't a chance in hell that they'll win the 2004 elections. They have absolutely zlich electability. Nada. None. El Zero. It ain't gonna happen. A major change in the social and poltical views of America will not happen overnight. The first step is someone not quite as liberal as Lieberman or Sharpton. The first step is someone like Kerry or Edwards. The social masses are infinitely more likely to accept one of them for president than they are the other candidates. If we truly want a political change in the upcoming election then we must vote for the first step in our grand plan. We must vote the only person with electability. Doing anything else is a waste of your vote. Sure it's your right to vote for who you please but lets face facts people. If you don't vote for one of the candidates that can actually get elected (or a party that needs a certain percentage to be in the election next time) then you're wasting your vote. Of course voting out of the norm for your state is wasting your vote thanks to this damned electoral college, but that's another matter. You can't make a sweeping change overnight. Small steps people. Walk before you run a marathon.
Leave it to slashdot moderators to label a Brainless Troll as +5 Insightful.
Unlike YOU I actually read the article. The headline does not in any way mention "close friends" in fact, the article specifically says "to millions of the Democratic and Republican rank-and-file" which not only is not "only about a million" it actually sounds like another way of saying anyone and everyone we can find an email address for and even the vaguest excuse to claim they might possibly be interested.
Even the writer of the articl is quick to admit how devious and underhanded this scheme is "And unlike those TV ads, the videos that appear on the Internet face none of the content regulations of the 2002 campaign finance law, including the statement by the candidate of "I approved this ad" that has given some campaigns pause before launching negative political ads. Web videos have the potential to be nastier than the typical TV ad."
This is not even slightly about "save the environment" and other tree-hugging fantasies it's purely and simply a loophole they've carefully crafted so that they can circumvent some very important campaign laws.
Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
You really haven't been paying attention, have you?
Lieberman is conservative, not liberal.
Sharpton is a very charming and acute speaker, but he's a GOP shill! Let me repeat: Sharpton is a GOP shill.
Kucinich is the most liberal remaining candidate, and the only one who's too liberal to get elected, because of his tax policy and because of his single-payer health policy - something even Clinton could not get support for, something Dean initially tried in Vermont and couldn't get through.
Electability is a false issue in the primaries.
Primary voting strategy should focus on the immediate goal: the convention.
The guy who shows up there with the most delegates is by definition electable, even if everybody voted their conscience.
Vote to either get your guy nominated, or to get him influence defining the platform, or to stop someone else, but vote for the convention, not November. November is far away, we know little about the candidates, and we don't know what Bush will do in the meantime.
Now, voting for the convention may not always mean voting your conscience. I think a lot of people's conscience leads them away from the current frontrunner, but they're fractured into separate camps. I know Kucinich voters are fighting for delegates, but I wish they'd consider whether they have a preference between the three more mainstream candidates who are still running.
And the Dean and Edwards camps need to take a good long look at each other and ask themselves what the heck they're doing. They're splitting an anti-Kerry vote, and I don't think either will cede it to the other because they're too different and too determined.
The problem with not voting is that you get lulled into complacency, rather than the only downside being that your candidate didn't get elected. It's VERY important to vote, even if your person doesn't win. Staying up on the state of affairs is what keeps politicians on their toes, no matter where you are.
--
Cast your vote for choice. Check out the link below, and learn about the nastiness in Linux politics.
Lindows Steals Copyrighted Art and Promotes Porn
"It a perfect world, a utopian dream if you will, you would vote for who you think is the best man/woman for the job."
Actually, in the world I live in now, that is exactly what I do.
"However this is a pipe dream and won't produce the results you want."
And voting for the lesser of two evils will?
"We might all agree with what a person like Lieberman says and we might like a lot of what Sharpton says (but maybe not all of it) but we know there isn't a chance in hell that they'll win the 2004 elections."
So? Your argument seems to be that I shouldn't vote my conscience because the person I'd vote for won't win. Therefore, I should vote for someone I don't think is the best person for the job, thereby ensuring that not only will my candidate not win, but the election results will demonstrate that no one voted for them, thus leading these 'leaders' to conclude that what my candidate stood for, nobody agrees with? Sounds like I'm throwing my vote away if you ask me.
"The first step is someone like Kerry or Edwards."
With all due respect, I heard this line of crap back in '92. The only difference between now and then, is I won't buy it this time. You think Kerry is going to change things, then you vote for him. Clinton came to power, and what did we have? Wars, wars, and more wars. Scandal, corruption, the DMCA, etc... It was the other side of the same coin, that quite frankly, I'm sick of. You want to continue the cycle that's been going on, vainly imgining that by repeating the mistakes of the past, you're going to get a different result in the future, then you do that.
I'm not buying into that line of thinking anymore. Like I said in my first post on this topic, I'd rather vote my conscience, and the rest of you with your daydreaming grand plans to change things, go along like sheep, believing the owned politicians, that somehow, they are the first step to change. When in reality, they are the very things that need changing.
"we truly want a political change in the upcoming election then we must vote for the first step in our grand plan."
Our grand plan? Who has the plan? I haven't seen it, no one asked for my input.
"The social masses are infinitely more likely to accept one of them for president than they are the other candidates."
I really don't care to waste my vote to appeal to the mob mentality. If the mob wants one of those people, then let them elect them. I have a conscience, and a duty and obligation to my society, to be ruled by that conscience and be true to myself. I will do this, and it won't matter how you try to spin it. I expect nothing less from you. So if you really think that thinking and voting the way you are arguing for is the best, then do so. I bear you no illwill, but in time, you will see the infinite loop that such things trap us in.
"Doing anything else is a waste of your vote."
On the contrary, doing anything other than voting your conscience, is throwing your vote away. I'm not part of your grand plan, like I said before, when did you get my input? I wouldn't vote lieberman either. Probably won't vote any candidate you've heard of. You can say I'm throwing my vote away, but I can look myself in the mirror every morning, and know that I spoke up for what I believe to be right. The rest of you simply chose the lesser of two evils.
"Walk before you run a marathon."
Exactly. The first step to change is refusing to vote along party lines, or for the lesser of two evils, and voting your conscience. If your conscience tells you to do one of the above, then do so. I bear no one any illwill for falling for the delusion I once fell for. But the only way to change things, is to take your stand as an individual, and quit imagining that you're part of some grand plan. You're not. Nobody planned anything with my input, did someone plan something with yours?
Think for yourself, destroy your television.
Filter anything containing the candidate names and party names
Use your head, can't you, use your head,
You're on earth, there's no cure for that - S. Beckett