The argument you seem to be proposing applies to any policy whatsoever. "Well, you have to convince people to vote for you and your policies". Ok, sure, that's what's being done.
My point is, that process of convincing is advertising.
So they'll only ban non-political advertising... until they decide your movement isn't political for the purposes of the laws. It's too obvious, and too tempting, a cudgel for any government to have.
Political messaging is more than TV ads and mailers. There are rallies, online groups, town halls, organizing, basic human communication stuff.
---
The way we reign in government isn't by having no rules (the argument you're making reduces to "any rule can be weaponized against political opposition"), it's political checks to ensure weaponization doesn't happen. Or put another way, there is no system of rules that constrains a regime defined by its rule breaking.
That's likely to be the case anyway, because politicians are rarely willing to restrict themselves. The US Do Not Call list has an exception for political spam.
(See also: why the two biggest political parties are unlikely to support better voting systems.)
There are other (democratic) countries with restriction on political ads. For the ruling party it isn't as bad as they got other means (official government communication etc.) while advertising is mostly needed as a tool for the opposition for being able to bring topics on the agenda.
The United States government is not allowed to regulate commerce unless it is interstate. So it defined interstate commerce as anything that substantially affects interstate commerce. Did you cut down a tree in your backyard and use it to make your own pencil with your own labor? That kept you from buying a pencil that might have been made in another state. Interstate commerce.
Did you just represent an idea, and did I pay you with my attention? Advertising. Prison.
You are being needlessly obtuse. If you are not going to at least pretend to be acting in good faith, then you just shouldn't comment at all.
> The United States government is not allowed to regulate commerce unless it is interstate
This isn't true even in the slightest. You are thinking of the Commerce Clause (Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution), which states that Congress has the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, between states, and with tribes (which are kinda foreign nations).
This does not state that the Federal Government cannot define what is legal and illegal. This is done pretty regularly. 24 states have legalized weed and 39 have made it available for medical use, YET it is still illegal under federal ruling and these dispensaries get raided by Federal Agents routinely. There is no violation of the Constitution here.
And remember, law doesn't work like code. It needs to be interpreted with intent. The letter of the law is imprecise and is not meant to be absolute. If you know what someone means, don't derail the conversation as if you have a gotcha. You're welcome to request better language, but you don't "win" by misrepresenting what is well understood. We're trying to communicate, not exploit software.
> 24 states have legalized weed and 39 have made it available for medical use, YET it is still illegal under federal ruling.
Congress at least has to pretend it has enumerated powers and is using them, most of the time, "promote the general welfare" notwithstanding. So do you know the basis for that federal "ruling"? Smoking weed, including weed grown in your backyard, substantially affects interstate commerce.
> And remember, law doesn't work like code. It needs to be interpreted with intent.
Is this not my point rather than yours? Open the door for ill intent and the imprecise nature of the law means that the first people with ill intent will exploit it.
"Congress shall make no law" is not a rule we can use for absolutely everything, of course, but where it does not exist, Congress historically shall pretty much inevitably make a law. So the answer to "is my unpopular speech advertising if adverting can be regulated?" is "yes." Of course it will be regulated. Others have pointed out that this applies to lots of laws, not just speech, to which I say... yeah?
