A non-partisan discussion. I was just reading how The Stones and Elton John recent fired off severe objections to using their songs in a campaign. So in researching the subject, I ran across this ... Technically speaking, copyright laws allow political candidates to use just about any song they want, as long as they're played at a stadium, arena or other venue that already has a public-performance license through a songwriters' association such as ASCAP or BMI. However, the law contains plenty of gray area. If a candidate refuses to stop using a song in this scenario, an artist may be able to protect his "right of publicity" – Springsteen's voice blaring over a loudspeaker is part of his image, and he has a right to protect his own image. "It's untested in the political realm," says Lawrence Iser, an intellectual-property lawyer who has represented the Beatles, Michael Jackson and many others. "Even if Donald Trump has the ASCAP right to use a Neil Young song, does Neil have the right to nevertheless go after him on right of publicity? I say he does." http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/why-politicians-keep-using-songs-without-artists-permission-20150709?page=2 I agree. Because if it was my song, I would want to protect what it it used to "represent" or "promote". E.G. If I was opposed to alcohol consumption, say on a deep and personal level, not just a simply objection, an all out loathe the practice, say, than I wouldn't want my song used in a Beer commercial or a Scotch ad. I say that's a justifiable objection. Well a political candidate can certainly strike a similar chord with an artist. What do you think?