FCC Votes For Online Transparency Of Political Advertisement Purchases
ProudProgressive
2012/04/28 14:19:42
In another example of the increased transparency that the Obama Administration has pushed for the last four years, and in yet another blow to the Right Wing attempt, aided and abetted by the most activist Supreme Court in American history, to buy the American election process, the FCC has moved to lift the veil of secrecy over funding of the endless attack ads that have already been launched against both the President and other Democratic candidates across the nation. It's not enough, of course, but it is another step in the right direction.
Article excerpt follows:
FCC Votes For Online Transparency Of Political Advertisement Purchases
April 27, 2012
By a two-to-one vote, the Federal Communications Commission voted today to require broadcasters to make previously hard-to-find public records available online. Within two years, they will have to post in an FCC online database their "public file" including who purchased or attempted to purchase air time for political advertisements and how much they paid for it. This information is currently only available by showing up, in person, at each television or radio station, and there are often bureaucratic barriers to actually accessing the information. While this additional transparency will not allow citizens to know who is funding shady independent ads, it will at least allow them to track where the spending is going and how much is being spent for each airtime purchase. The two Democrats on the Commission voted for the rules, the lone Republican voted against.
Article excerpt follows:
FCC Votes For Online Transparency Of Political Advertisement Purchases
April 27, 2012
By a two-to-one vote, the Federal Communications Commission voted today to require broadcasters to make previously hard-to-find public records available online. Within two years, they will have to post in an FCC online database their "public file" including who purchased or attempted to purchase air time for political advertisements and how much they paid for it. This information is currently only available by showing up, in person, at each television or radio station, and there are often bureaucratic barriers to actually accessing the information. While this additional transparency will not allow citizens to know who is funding shady independent ads, it will at least allow them to track where the spending is going and how much is being spent for each airtime purchase. The two Democrats on the Commission voted for the rules, the lone Republican voted against.
Read More: http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/04/27/472899...
But if you're dissatisfied with the level of transparency in the current government, then why would you oppose regulations that increase transparency?
Furthermore Obama ran on the mantra that his administration would be the most transparent in the history of the US. He has come no where near delivering on that promise. His administration has beed so far from tranparent it's ridiculous. When the media has to repeatedly file lawsuits under the FOIA to acquire information that is public record it shows just how untransparent they truly are.
I never said I was opposed to increasing transparency. Nice try in spinning the facts but you fail. I am for total tranparency by the government. I am unhappy with Obama's failure to deliver on his promise of a transparent administration and a BS article such as this trying to dispell the fact and truth. No where does it state that Obama had anything to do with pushing for this ruling. If he were true to his word the healthcare bill would have been on the internet for everyone to read (another failed campaign promise he made) before its passage. And...
Furthermore Obama ran on the mantra that his administration would be the most transparent in the history of the US. He has come no where near delivering on that promise. His administration has beed so far from tranparent it's ridiculous. When the media has to repeatedly file lawsuits under the FOIA to acquire information that is public record it shows just how untransparent they truly are.
I never said I was opposed to increasing transparency. Nice try in spinning the facts but you fail. I am for total tranparency by the government. I am unhappy with Obama's failure to deliver on his promise of a transparent administration and a BS article such as this trying to dispell the fact and truth. No where does it state that Obama had anything to do with pushing for this ruling. If he were true to his word the healthcare bill would have been on the internet for everyone to read (another failed campaign promise he made) before its passage. And it wouldn't have been passed in the dark of night behind closed doors without even being read by those that passed it. This is just one example of his non-transparency and his failure to deliver on his promises.
From your own posting, try reading what you post!
You are right about brain dead independents. In fact all the factions have here idiots to deal with. I'm just a conservative who is doing the same as you. I have never been a party line voter, I have always voted for the individual that I felt would do the best job. Right now that would be anyone other than Obama.