The following ad is from the 2004 Presidential Election. It is an important one since it was the first Presidential campaign cycle that employed the usage of 527 organizations. These organizations come from a section of the tax code which allows groups to subsequently get involved in issue advocacy campaigns. The organizations, however, cannot support a candidate. They can only advocate against someone running for office.
In an earlier post, I mentioned that Super PACs are now more influential in political campaigns. In their ads, Super PACs can advocate for or against candidates running for office. They have surpassed 527 organizations in terms of their effectiveness.
Should there be a limit to what campaign ads can advocate?
Politics Matters 
Having some limits on campaign ads and what they advocate do need to be put in place. Super PACS have too much of an influence when it comes to campaigning, and it comes down to which politician is supported by the PACs. This candidate wins because of ads like the one above. Voters who do not follow the news and the candidates, might just see ads against a certain candidate and base their decision on one ad.
Having limits on campaigns shouldn’t be allowed. Either have cap hit on campaigns or up it up completely. Yes, an open system would produce more money in ads, but you can also find out whose supporting a canidate if the law is replaced. Having a cap hit, would allow a vast influence over campaign ads from ever soaring.
I would say there should be some limits to what the 527’s advocate and in the tax code. These ads are costing little to make, the money is going to distribution of these ads to the TV and radio. Both the campaign and the ad makers know that if they can grab mind-share of you before your opponent they have already won. The political process is all about the people and what is best for them, not the taking over the TV and radio with ads no one wants to see after two days.
Yes I do think that there should be a limit because like with all things if there is no limit people will take advantage. I really don’t think that it is productive to “advocate” or constantly bash something or someone constantly it’s counterproductive. The fact that there is no limit leaves the door open for things to run amuck
Even if limits are created, there is always a way around them. I’m not sure if loopholes were purposely left in the laws about campaigning, but the loopholes are exploited to their full potential. It would be nice if there were no dirty tricks but that isn’t how it works. If a 527 pays for all of the anti-candidate ads, a different type of organization can pay for the pro-candidate ads. The different organizations have no limits on how much they can abuse a loophole as long as they stay within the legal limits.
Limits on what a campaign ad can advocate isn’t necessary. These organizations have the right to air whatever ads they choose and for whoever they choose to back/be against. If a 527 organization wanted to do a pro-someone ad they should be able to.
Absolutely I mean theres limits on what you can and ant say in the general public regardless. So TVs no different ads are just ways of making one lookgood and the other bad you say what you will to make apoint
I think there should be some limits as to what they can and cannot say on TV because most ads like that are made to look real but are usually a bunch of half-truths spliced together. It’s not right to be bashing people by lying about them or what they stand for. The unfortunate thing is that there probably always will be ways around getting their messages out if limits were placed on them.
I think ther should be a limits on what you can say or cannot say ontv because everything said on the television is been edited and perfected. There is always two side of coin the televison usually only emphasis the good part and convince the audience to believe in what the advertisement said.
There is no need to have a limit on what ad campaigns can advocate. It goes against and takes away from freedom of speech.