But if you think GE is eager to spend 10%, or even 0.1%, on political ads, you should think again.
In any event, the voters aren't idiots, and they can make informed decisions even if there are some ads thrown in their faces - which would probably backfire anyway as they got sick of the ads and questioned their motivation.
You don't think voters are idiots who need to be protected from hearing certain messages or getting too much information, do you? Do you?
Hope and Change. Change we can believe in. Yes, we can.
It's clear a nearly trillion dollar advertising campaign just got an inexperienced bumbling backtracking jester into the Oval Office, of course advertising works.
Who did you vote for Cassandra? How can anyone on this forum deny advertising works, look to some of the posts in here. Advertising swallowed hook, link, and sinker on a daily basis.
It was the Austrasians, that hewed on bravely through the thick of the fight, it was they who found and cut down the Saracen King.
If you're continuing to pretend otherwise, then you're being deliberately disingenuous.
Again, if GE wanted to spend 8.5B on politics, they could have done so already. You keep on pretending that this isn't the case.
People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.
Obama gives powerful drug lobby a seat at healthcare table
The pharmaceutical industry, once condemned by the president as a source of healthcare problems, has become a White House partner.
August 04, 2009|Tom Hamburger L.A.Times
WASHINGTON — As a candidate for president, Barack Obama lambasted drug companies and the influence they wielded in Washington. He even ran a television ad targeting the industry's chief lobbyist, former Louisiana congressman Billy Tauzin, and the role Tauzin played in preventing Medicare from negotiating for lower drug prices.
Since the election, Tauzin has morphed into the president's partner. He has been invited to the White House half a dozen times in recent months. There, he says, he eventually secured an agreement that the administration wouldn't try to overturn the very Medicare drug policy that Obama had criticized on the campaign trail.
It was important, he said, to block the threat of Medicare price negotiations, which he called tantamount to price-setting and a threat to the industry. In addition, Tauzin said the industry asked the administration not to allow the import of cheaper drugs because of safety concerns.
So this ruling doesn't change much - that is true- the problem is the system is already corrupted and this ruling just opens the door a little further.
Tough. That's free speech!I have also seen what happens when one point of view drowns out other points of view. Last time H.C. reform was under consideration, BiG Pharma and the Health Insurance Assoc. of America spent up to 20 million to defeat it- I am sure you remember the Harry and Louise ads. Why do you suppose that Obama made this concession, now? Do you think maybe he hoped not to buy their cooperation?
Do you think there should be limits on the amount of speech everyone should have? A dollar amount for everyone? Political parties, wealthy individuals, etc?
Speech isn't corruption.So this ruling doesn't change much - that is true- the problem is the system is already corrupted and this ruling just opens the door a little further.