When it was clear that Bush and his Enron-GOP Congress were totaly incapable
of preventing
this Bush-caused recession, I came forward with The
Bartcop Tax Plan, which may have
stopped the recession dead in its tracks by giving real money
to real people, not the super-rich.
It's clear the Congress will not be capable of passing a meaningful
Campaign Finance Reform Bill
that will get by the crooked Scalia 5. But once again, I have
the answer to the problem.
Remember a thing called "The Fairness Doctrine?" It was created
to guarantee equal coverage by media.
Republican's opposed fairness, because they can't win without a stacked
deck because as St. Reagan
reminded us, "They own the microphone".
But, when applied to Campaign Finance Reform it provides us with an
obvious and simple answer.
When one individual, party or lobbying group runs an advertisement
with a reference to any other
individual, party or lobbying group, the named individual, party or
lobbying group gets the final third
at the end of the ad for rebuttal.
This works perfectly and let me tell you how:
There is no restriction of Free Speech, you can buy all the ads you
want,
but you won't be able to bury your opponent with negative ads.
If the NRA or Big Cancer wants to scream "bloody murder"
at Democrats - fine.
But every time they do, the Democrats get the last third of the message
to say "horseshit"
and then give the truth and the facts to counter the GOP lies and spin.
That way, if the NRA or Big Oil wants to spend three million
propping up their boy,
they're actually giving a million to the Democrats, so both sides are
heppy.
Remember in the summer of 2000, Bush was doing badly in New York until
the Wylye Brothers
gave him $2 million to call McCain "pro-breast
cancer" and
"pro-pollution?"
Under my plan, McCain would've gotten $666,000 in free advertising
to counter with the truth.
Knowing the opponent will get a say at the end, it would force politicians
to campaign cleaner.
The way it works now, the guy who promises the most to the biggest polluters
can wage
the biggest campaign because he's backed by crooked and dishonest brokers.
(President Greedy - call your office.)
Candidates will not need a great war chest to defend themselves.
Candidates will be able to refuse soft money and still win.
The bigger the ad buy, the more rebuttal time the little guy gets.
Those that use huge amounts of soft money might even have to explain
themselves.
The worst that could happen is we'd have fewer bullshit ads, and
maybe people
would have to watch the televised debates to see where each candidate
stood.
This concept works for all types of advertising including corporate
issue ads.
Media outlets can be the arbiters for who replies with their licenses
at risk.
They don't even have to give free time. Just charge the originator
for the full time.
It's so simple, only I could think of it.