Kind of. The PAC could spend as much money as it wanted, but it couldn't give above a certain amount directly to the candidate. Which they took issue with now because the candidate themselves gets a discounted rate for ad buys and the Democrats were getting more and more of their money from small dollar donations.
So the Republican PACs would spend say 100m and get the same amount of ads a Democratic candidate could buy with like 25m (those almost certainly aren't the actual numbers, idk the actual discounted rate the candidates actually get. That's just an example to illustrate the concept)
It's part of the FCC guidelines. It's called the Lowest Unit Charge Rule, and it says that for the 45 days before a Primary and 60 days before a General Election TV broadcasters and radio stations must offer qualified political candidates the lowest rate they can possibly offer to an entity for a similar slot.
It's meant to be so a station can't like play favorites and charge one candidate a much higher rate than the other. Thereby putting their thumb on the scale for the candidate they give the cheaper rate to. The guidelines just only apply to the candidate directly and not to private ads done on behalf of the candidate like those from a super PAC.
14 Comments
danc4498@lemmy.world · 53 pts · 68d
This is just what our politics needed!
jpreston2005@lemmy.world · 13 pts · 68d
more money, more bribery, longer campaigns, more ads, whoopeee! Nobody but billionaires and their political lapdogs want this! hoorayy!
Azell@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 68d
danc4498@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 68d
Many of them voted for gun rights and had no idea about the rest. If only they knew they already had gun rights.
tanisnikana@lemmy.world · 17 pts · 68d
There were limits before?
Macchi_the_Slime@piefed.blahaj.zone · 17 pts · 68d
Kind of. The PAC could spend as much money as it wanted, but it couldn't give above a certain amount directly to the candidate. Which they took issue with now because the candidate themselves gets a discounted rate for ad buys and the Democrats were getting more and more of their money from small dollar donations.
So the Republican PACs would spend say 100m and get the same amount of ads a Democratic candidate could buy with like 25m (those almost certainly aren't the actual numbers, idk the actual discounted rate the candidates actually get. That's just an example to illustrate the concept)
tanisnikana@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 68d
I see. Fascists gonna fasc, I suppose.
sem@piefed.blahaj.zone · 2 pts · 67d
Why would TV stations give the candidate a discounted rate over a pac?
Macchi_the_Slime@piefed.blahaj.zone · 5 pts · 67d
It's part of the FCC guidelines. It's called the Lowest Unit Charge Rule, and it says that for the 45 days before a Primary and 60 days before a General Election TV broadcasters and radio stations must offer qualified political candidates the lowest rate they can possibly offer to an entity for a similar slot.
It's meant to be so a station can't like play favorites and charge one candidate a much higher rate than the other. Thereby putting their thumb on the scale for the candidate they give the cheaper rate to. The guidelines just only apply to the candidate directly and not to private ads done on behalf of the candidate like those from a super PAC.
sem@piefed.blahaj.zone · 2 pts · 66d
Thanks!
mbp@slrpnk.net · 6 pts · 68d
Well the mask has been off for some time now, why the fuck not.
PagPag@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 68d
This timeline is great…
roserose56@lemmy.zip · 5 pts · 68d
Sure, yea, like it was a taboo before. Nothing new here.
jpreston2005@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 68d
Won't let me read the article because it "suspects I'm a robot."
jesus fucking christ do I despise you, new york times.
Mostly_Gristle@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 68d
I'm sure only good things will come of this.