The networks themselves wouldn't be banned, but they wouldn't be permitted to endorse or give airtime to a candidate in exchange for money, I'd assume is the idea.
They're not endorsing candidates in exchange for money. They do use their money to run their networks, which they use to promote certain candidates and positions.
Re: "The line is clear: is money being exchanged in order to promote a product? That's advertising."
What if the candidates did it for free? Aren't they already, because the networks are platforming them? Wouldn't the mere fact of showing a candidate be an endorsement in itself?
The networks themselves wouldn't be banned, but they wouldn't be permitted to endorse or give airtime to a candidate in exchange for money, I'd assume is the idea.
They're not endorsing candidates in exchange for money. They do use their money to run their networks, which they use to promote certain candidates and positions.
Re: "The line is clear: is money being exchanged in order to promote a product? That's advertising."
They’re endorsing candidates to sell more newspapers or more airtime for advertisers. How is that not “in exchange for money”?
3 replies →
What if the candidates did it for free? Aren't they already, because the networks are platforming them? Wouldn't the mere fact of showing a candidate be an endorsement in itself?