Should Politicians Be Forced To Wear Sponsers?

[kite]

a while back i heard a comedian make a comment (i think it was Robin Williams) that politicians should wear sponsor jackets like they have in NASCAR. personally, i think it's a great idea because since they're not thinking of the public when they go into office then why should we vote for them based on their personality or some news clips?
"i would like to thank cheveron, exxonmobil, and the insurance companies of america... oh yeah, and the americans that i stepped on and used to get here. thank you."

[Rance]

Although I can sort've actually see the point you make, Kite, what I think would end up actually happening is that consumers would alienate certain companies for their political affiliations. For example....

If Obama or McCain were sponsored by Exxon, Giant Foods, Pepsi Cola, and so forth, people who were opposite the candidate's thoughts would likely not buy products from those large companies, because the money they spent on the products would, in fact, be turned back around to pad campaign funds. In the longer term, you're looking at potential problems with the economical impacts that this might have. Reducing the income for these companies causes them to inflate their prices. Companies that supported less popular political parties would begin seeing a complete downward spiral in their earnings, because the views with which their name would be associated would not necessarily be the popular one.

Hell, I do this myself on a small scale. For example, I won't purchase any products from Hechinger Home Improvement stores. Why? They support advanced gun-control, and being not just a conservative, but a gun-owner, it feels as though I would be feeding money back into a gun-control campaign.

I think the economical implications this would have would get really tricky, not to mention the subsidies provided to candidates by massive companies. If Candidate A were to get backed by all the major companies, and Candidate B managed to get the smaller ones ... we'd see a lot more on television, in ads, and in general publicity from Candidate A, because they would have the funds from those sponsoring companies to support their publicity.

[Darkfinn]

Actually I would like to see that. It's a great idea... but I don't think it will ever happen.

[kite]

so then it seems like it would be a great idea because, aside from the two party system, this looks like it would even out the playing field. you morally can't vote for one because they're sponsored by such-and-such a company, but choice B is sponsored by another one and you know that companies back certain candidates for a return when they're in office.

[Darkfinn]

Didn't we all learn our lesson about voting for someone based on morals and values last time around?

[Rance]

Originally Posted by kite

so then it seems like it would be a great idea because, aside from the two party system, this looks like it would even out the playing field. you morally can't vote for one because they're sponsored by such-and-such a company, but choice B is sponsored by another one and you know that companies back certain candidates for a return when they're in office.

What it looks like we'd be doing in that case, however, would be reducing the importance of campaign anatomy and proposed changes, and saying that it's more important to vote for a candidate because of the commercial backing they have.

Personally, I don't want McDonald's to be my real president from behind the suit of the candidate they sponsored, or any other company for that matter. We would, at that point, be turning presidency into a money-making enterprise. No matter what believes or values our candidates run for, I would much rather them run off of these believes and values alone rather than having some kind of commercialized support cheering on behind them, waving greenbacks and winking slyly at the lowly consumers and citizens.

[Footed P.J.]

Barack Obama in a soccer kit. Hmmmmmm. (they often have sponsors on the front)

[Fire2box]

Originally Posted by Darkfinn

Didn't we all learn our lesson about voting for someone based on morals and values last time around?

No, they voted for him a 2nd time. Now everyone wants a guy that hasn't done anything to support our country. (speaking of Obama)
People can vote how they want but G.W. Bush shut Kerry out the 2nd time.

[kite]

Originally Posted by Rance

Personally, I don't want McDonald's to be my real president from behind the suit of the candidate they sponsored, or any other company for that matter. We would, at that point, be turning presidency into a money-making enterprise. No matter what believes or values our candidates run for, I would much rather them run off of these believes and values alone rather than having some kind of commercialized support cheering on behind them, waving greenbacks and winking slyly at the lowly consumers and citizens.

i think you missed my point a bit. what i was saying was instead of us thinking that a candidate is running for office just to help as a high sitting civil servant as themselves why not bring to the forefront all their real reasons like the lobbyists, special interests groups, and the like. if they wear the badges that the cooperations give them in the open either they won't be tempted to work for them or they'll do away with special interest 'investments' altogether and actually make the elections a democratic process.

[Rance]

I definitely think I see where you're coming from, but I still hold for the belief that doing this would have an extremely poor economic effect on the nation as a whole. By synchronizing corporate interest with presidential candidacy in a direct, public fashion, there is a great, great, great amount of risk or dissent and disassociation in the world of trade. To me, it feels like mixing oil and water, orange-juice and toothpaste: It's just a potentially devastating idea. The implications seem less political and more effective on the public that views those endorsements.

Yes, it's common knowledge that presidential candidates are vying for control often-times for the prosper of specific special interests. Since the infancy of the American government, this has been the case -- but to bring those special interests straight out, speak on their behalf, and to allow a candidate to speak against the interests of others, only seems to serve as something that would brittle the country's fabric. The two-party system is certainly not perfect, but it must always be remembered that there's a certain perfection in the imperfection; checks and balances, separation of power, all intended to keep things working while incorporating enough squeaky gears to make sure that things don't run too smoothly.

Potentially eliminating that two-party system in this proposed manner -- by replacing it with a system that suggests the presence of a LOT of tiny parties -- just seems, to me, to be a dangerous step in a direction that could lead to pockets of anarchy and dysfunction within the nation.

Of course money and politics are linked, but keeping that link out of sight keeps it out of mind for the majority of the American public, and that, I believe, is the way it should stay.