[dlt713705]

So, you agree with the opinion stated in electoral material if it is marked as official campaign material but disagree with the same opinion if it is marked as paid marketing material?

I would like to quote Spock here: "Fascinating..."

[unethical_ban]

Different person: I might give weight to the word of someone I respect, then change my mind when I find out that person wasn't saying it due to conviction but only for a payout, yes.

[dlt713705]

I completely understand and fully agree with this idea even if I still have to see one political with a strong conviction that are not paid out in a way or another.

Anyway, if the ideas illegally disseminated through this campaign material convinced the voter to choose this candidate over another, what other choice does he have ? Vote for someone that he wouldn't vote in the first place because of his opinion ?

May be I'm wrong assuming people vote for ideas and opinion...

[xuhu]

More likely he wants paid advertising to be marked as such. For whose benefit do advertising regulations exist ?

[scott_w]

That’s not what was said