A song is a product of an artist like a book is of an author's. Both are works of intellectual property. Now, considering a scenario where a politician needs a book to be recited during his speech publicly, he would have to buy the book. Then why can't a song be treated in the same manner? A politician is using the product of another for his own use without permission should be chargeable.
The use of music without the artist's permission amounts to stealing the song and those who steal should be faced with a hefty fine to pay. This frequently happens when politician use a song without permission as part of their campaign. The artist is entitled to the rewards of their creative work and should be paid.
It is natural for politicians to steal! Aren't most of then attorneys? Sleazy politicians. I'm glad that some artists have sued and won. Copyright laws should change to address the use of their music in political arenas. My home contains my possessions. My personal agenda is to keep those possessions. The law prevents you from entering my home and taking those possessions, it also prevents you from popping in and plastering political propaganda on the windows.
Yes, politicians should face fines when they play songs at their campaign events without the artist's permission. Artists go through a lot of trouble and expense to copyright their creative works. Like anyone else who benefits by violating the intellectual property rights of another, politicians should similarly face the possibility of fines, lawsuits and litigation for using the copyrighted works of others without permission.
Many times politicians will play songs at campaign events without getting permission from the artist. Politicians should not be fined for playing these songs as long as they are not using the music to raise money, or otherwise profit from the music. Yes, creative works like music should be respected and not stolen; however, simply playing a song at a campaign event is not stealing from the artist.