Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Candidate Ads, Coming Soon To An Inbox Near You

Posted by timothy on from the spam-from-the-pork-peddlers dept.

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."

26 of 505 comments (clear)

  1. if they spam me by cyrax777 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    They will certanly not get my vote!!

    1. Re:if they spam me by Reverend528 · · Score: 5, Funny

      They're actually going to send spams advertising their opponent's campaigns.

      --
      Badass Resumes
    2. Re:if they spam me by Veridium · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "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.
    3. Re:if they spam me by compass46 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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. :)

  2. The solution by Bendebecker · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Email them all back. See how they like it.

    --
    There's a growing sense that even if The Future comes,
    most of us won't be able to afford it.
    -- Lemmy
    1. Re:The solution by c1ay · · Score: 5, Funny
      cc contact@ataconnect.org while you're at it to make sure they get enough copies to send to their friends. Everyone should probably forward their copy to darl@sco.com as well. He's hoping to have about $5 billion available that he could contribute to the campaign effort as well so I'm sure the candidates would really appreciate it.

      --

    2. Re:The solution by c1ay · · Score: 5, Funny

      Maybe not though. According to Dave Barry there's at least 14 or 15 people that are not on the internet yet. This type of campaigning would miss these people.

      --

    3. Re:The solution by gilroy · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Blockqouth the poster:

      According to the headlines, only about a million emails will be sent, and only to "close friends."

      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
  3. This will get ugly by erick99 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    This is what will allow this form of campaigning to get very ugly.

    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/
  4. But what I don't understand is, by pheared · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

    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-scopi ng-the-latest-penis-enhacement-pills crowd. It almost makes sense when you consider it that way.

  5. Hard enough to find a good candidate... by Skynyrd · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'm not too impressed with anybody in the race, but if I'm getting spam from them - there's no way in hell I'd vote for them.

    Their spam will be sent back. Their "voter feedback" form will be used to explain why I would never buy a product advertised by spam - including the President.

  6. Oh please... by WIAKywbfatw · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  7. Adult content filter by Michael+Crutcher · · Score: 5, Funny
    Bush might try to send me some email to try to solicit a contribution but I'm reasonably sure that my adult content filter will delete it.

    If I can devise a Lurch filter I might be able to avoid any messages from Kerry too.

  8. Re:Email? What about phone?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I think you said why we like this guy.

    "I'm not Bush!"

  9. Candidate spoofing by irhtfp · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I can see spoofing (as in faking the source of) these types of emails to become very common.

    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.
  10. What Spam by USAPatriot · · Score: 5, Insightful
    The article doesn't say anything about you and me receiving "spam", or unsolicited bulk email from these campaigns.

    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.

  11. Caucuses and Spammaries by corby · · Score: 5, Informative

    I gave to a Presidential campaign during the 2000 cycle. Over the next few months, I was deluged with snail mail and phone calls begging me for more money. I found it very frustrating and invasive. This year, I tried to give to a candidate's campaign through his website, but the process required me to provide an e-mail address that was verifiably mine. I did not complete the donation.

    I will give to a Presidential campaign that I support when I can check a box that says, 'Do not spam or harass me.' (Or when I can provide darl@sco.com as my e-mail address) But not before then, I'm afraid.

  12. But you HAVE to vote for one of them... by calmdude · · Score: 5, Funny

    Kodos: It's true, we are aliens, but what are you going to do about it? It's a two-party system...you HAVE to vote for one of us!!

    Man: He's right, this is a two-party system!

    Second Man: Well, I believe I'll vote for a third-party candidate.

    Kang: Go ahead, throw your vote away! (evil laugh)

  13. Re:Email? What about phone?! by Guppy06 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Last year we here in Louisiana had a gubenatorial run-off. The year before we had an ugly US Senate run-off where both sides did copious amounts of telephone campaigning (canned messages from Bush, Daschle, et al) which pretty much got everybody angry (or so they say, there were still more voters in the run-off than the open primary).

    At any rate, last year there was very little telephone campaigning, except towards the end there were a few calls here and there at annoying hours for one candidate, and when word got around that candidate accused his competitor of hosting the telephoning in order to frame him.

    Are you sure those calls are really from Kerry supporters?

    One of the two reasons I'm not happy about "campaign finance reform" is that focusing more on limits and less on accountability actually helps things like this happen. The more otherwise legitimate contributions are forced to be made in roundabout manners, the more chaffe the truly despicable campaign practices have to hide among.

  14. This is dumber than spam by DeathToBill · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  15. Re:Email? What about phone?! by nomadic · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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".

  16. Re:OT: Political culture by QuasiCoLtd · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  17. better spam than mass-mailings by TheGuinnesseur · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Would they be more likely to get your vote if they sent you a piece of cardstock in the mail with some witty slogans and a pretty photo?

    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?

    1. Re:better spam than mass-mailings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      If I want to hear it, I'll go to their website. Saves the trees, and keeps my inbox clear.

      They're profitting by this e-mail (paid if elected), so it's spam.

      So fuck um both. I hope someone brings a class action lawsuit against them if they do this horse-shit.

    2. Re:better spam than mass-mailings by TheGuinnesseur · · Score: 5, Insightful
      1. They're profitting by this e-mail (paid if elected), so it's spam.

      Let's get real. People don't run for president because of the salary and benefit package. They do it for power. Now, in an ideal world the Presidency would be a selfless job (I'd still like to believe it is), but it's not about "paid if elected."

      If you're idealistic, it's about upholding the Constitution and enforcing laws enacted by Congress. If you're cynical, it's about cronyism, nepotism and using the people of the United States for fun and profit. Whatever way you slice it, it's not about the $250K salary.

  18. in a way I am happy by beforewisdom · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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