Quote:Campaign ads are ads targeting at swinging votes in campaigns. A very specific thing that when it leads to swinging votes in government in the favor of the special interests or billionaires involved then yes that is 100% corrupt. 

 

The voters have a right to know who is telling them the things they see on the idiot box. An informed electorate is a good electorate. 

 

I do not agree that attempting to swing votes in government in favor of special interests is inherently corrupt.   In fact, when you say, "swinging votes in government in the favor of the special interests..." aren't you just describing democracy itself?  This is how a democratic republic operates.  

 

You also say, "The voters have a right to know who is telling them the things they see on the idiot box."   Where in the Constitution does it say the voters have that right?  

 

Then you say, "An informed electorate is a good electorate."  Yes, absolutely.   But I can see a scenario where disallowing anonymous political speech would actually lead to a less informed electorate, if it deters people from making a political statement.   If you want to make a political statement through an advertisement, but were afraid that revealing your name could lead to some sort of retaliation against you, then you could be deterred from running that advertisement, and that could lead to a less informed electorate, not a more informed one.   What I am saying is, rights apply to everyone, and if you take away the right to run an anonymous political advertisement, you are not just taking that right away from millionaires and billionaires, you are also taking that right away from yourself.  

---