Ugh. A little bit of me just died realizing that politicians are going to get even more aggressive about their marketing after the success of Obama's campaign tactics. They'll use it as a template moving forward.
Since they're the ones writing the anti-spam and anti-robo-call laws, we'll have absolutely no protection from their pursuit of marketing their messages to us.
The really sad thing is that back around 2007, Obama promised an open campaign that would use public funding - signaling that he was a different kind of candidate who didn't want the corruption of money to taint his campaign. Rather than leading the way on the high ground, the whole process is being dragged rather deeply through the mud.
Obama's use of public funding is rather historic. In his first election, he raised more money in small increments from individual donors than any other candidate before him. That's regular people paying $10 or $20 each instead of Citizens United or "Swiftboat Veterans For Truth" putting hundreds of millions behind candidates.
Do we want to have "secret donors" investing billions dollars to get the government to suit their business interests? Or do we want to get spammed daily by politicians asking for money? The first route cedes control to businesses, assuming that what they want will be good for most people. The second involves direct participation and a small amount of suffering from individual citizens, but puts the financial aspect of politics more into the hands of the people. This is a question that's more fundamental to the concept of democracy than it may seem.
The trouble with the micro-payments (micro, campaign-funding-wise) is that they are not vetted in the same way that larger payments are. Pardon my ignorance, but would it not be trivial for a foreign entity to take advantage of this and create a great many small payments from disparate sources (prepaid credit cards and such)? I understand there was some minor hand-wringing over this prospect in the most recent US presidential election.
Or they could become a major investor in a company which has "free speach rights" and just write one big check. I expect in 2016 some country is going to decide that they should just spend a few hundred million dollars to get the foreign policy they want.
I don't see how this is responsive to the article, which doesn't deal with campaign finance or robo calls at all. It's about content of email sent to a decidedly opt-in recipient list, which quite frankly only barely qualifies as spam by most people's definitions.
How exactly would "more aggressive" use of "campaign tactics" like "offer free stuff", and "ask the recipient to do something specific" make a part of you die? (!??)
I mean, I can pretty much tell you're not an Obama supporter. And I can guess that the last week probably hasn't been kind to your disposition. But that's simply not what the linked article is about. Try reading it again.
Opt outs and email filters. The great thing about current technology is that it continues to provide the consumer with filtering options. I can DVR shows and skip commercials. I can turn on AdBlock. I can forward all of my Obama mail directly into my delete box.
The survivors of my filtering options are the products that provide me with some value that make me not want to employ a filter against them. Reddit's personal appeals and thank you put them on my adblock exemption list. The excitement of live NBA games keeps me watching commercials rather than DVR. A feeling of inclusion, no matter how manufactured, lead me to not autotrash Obama mail.
Filters cause better products, and Obama's campaign rose to the challenge(at least for me). That is hardly draggin the process through the mud.
Since they're the ones writing the anti-spam and anti-robo-call laws, we'll have absolutely no protection from their pursuit of marketing their messages to us.
The really sad thing is that back around 2007, Obama promised an open campaign that would use public funding - signaling that he was a different kind of candidate who didn't want the corruption of money to taint his campaign. Rather than leading the way on the high ground, the whole process is being dragged rather deeply through the mud.