Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Minnesota

Mister Ed

(6,416 posts)

5. They're required by law to accept those ads.

Reply to geardaddy (Original post)

Mon Oct 29, 2018, 10:49 AM

Oct 2018

I've heard hosts on AM 950 this past week explaining that broadcasters are not permitted to refuse to run ads for a particular party. If they refused, they'd risk losing their license.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

14 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

I am seething right now. [View all] geardaddy Oct 2018 OP

Making a buck. Sneederbunk Oct 2018 #1

Yeah, that's my take. geardaddy Oct 2018 #4

You must not watch much TV, lucky you question everything Oct 2018 #2

I do watch TV and I've seen those combined Phillips/Ellison ads. geardaddy Oct 2018 #3

They're required by law to accept those ads. Mister Ed Oct 2018 #5

Ah, well, I guess that makes sense. geardaddy Oct 2018 #6

I look at it this way. dflprincess Oct 2018 #7

They could refuse to run any ads for MN AG, but if they run for one candidate Eric J in MN Oct 2018 #8

I haven't heard a Keith Ellison ad geardaddy Nov 2018 #14

Was it customized for Democrats or Eric J in MN Nov 2018 #9

Sounds like a standard ad to me. Nt dflprincess Nov 2018 #10

Probably a waste of money by the Wardlow campaign. NT Eric J in MN Nov 2018 #11

It starts out accusing Ellison of assault geardaddy Nov 2018 #12

Heard it again this morning. geardaddy Nov 2018 #13