Because what's going on now, and this applies mostly to television stations in the largest markets too, but TV stations basically are now the primary receivers of campaign spending.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
It is essential that there should not only be a limit on campaign spending but it should be required to say where that money is spent and how it is spent. I think there has been more abuse in campaign spending, actually, than in campaign contributors.
The American people have a right to know the source of the money that is being spent. They should be told who is behind the millions of dollars in campaign ads, and they should receive this information before they vote.
More money is being spent on our elections, with less disclosure of where that money is coming from, than ever before.
Radio stinks. The stations are making a lot of money, but they just aren't taking chances.
There's a lot of politics over who gets the next allocation of Congressional funding.
Because Republicans have no ideas, they want to turn elections into the battle of dollars.
By the same token, I think news has more and more of a pro bono aspect to all the networks. When we do our election coverages throughout this coming year, it's not a money-maker for us. It is more of a public service situation.
Well I think money has been going into political campaigns for a very long time.
The number one lobby that opposes campaign finance reform in the United States is the National Association of Broadcasters.
When we started looking at the bigger television ecosystem, you see that there's not that many serialized TV shows being made for TV. The economics are lousy: They don't sell into syndication well; they're expensive to produce.
No opposing quotes found.