How is this different from what happens in the U.S. with the Corporation for Public Broadcasting? |
How is this different from what happens in the U.S. with the Corporation for Public Broadcasting? |
It is more like some of the shadowy fundraising we saw in 2000, where the work is never performed but instead is laundered through the ad agency and then finds its way back in to a Liberal (read DNC) slush fund. Basically phony invoices with huge kickbacks to the Liberal party machine.
No difference...
Plus AARP, ACLU, and a hundred others vectors of mispending, maybe a thousand.. or more..
Worse, the licensing of broadcast bands - say rather, the censorship of everyone who does not have a license - represents abridgement of "the freedom of speech, or of the press."The government, ironically, grants broadcast licenses on condition that the licensee claim to be objective. The First Amendment emphasizes that it covers politics ("the right of the people peacably to assemble, and to petititon the government"); the government responds by giving favors to people for claiming to make the distinction between what is political and what is not - a distinction which the First Amendment does not recognize.
In real life nothing is quite so political as making the statement that you are not political.
As I understand it, this is about having the Canadian government pay an ad agency a bunch of money, while said ad agency hired a bunch of liberal hacks and put them on the payroll.