Should Politicians Be Forced To Wear Sponsers?

Status
Not open for further replies.

kite

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,936
Role
Diaper Lover, Diaperfur, Carer
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."
 

Dawes

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,805
Role
Diaper Lover
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

Banned
Messages
3,681
Role
Diaper Lover, Incontinent,
Actually I would like to see that. It's a great idea... but I don't think it will ever happen.
 

kite

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,936
Role
Diaper Lover, Diaperfur, Carer
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

Banned
Messages
3,681
Role
Diaper Lover, Incontinent,
Didn't we all learn our lesson about voting for someone based on morals and values last time around?
 

Dawes

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,805
Role
Diaper Lover
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.
 

Fire2box

Est. Contributor
Messages
10,934
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover
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

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,936
Role
Diaper Lover, Diaperfur, Carer
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.
 

Dawes

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,805
Role
Diaper Lover
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.
 

BabyMullet

Est. Contributor
Messages
859
Role
Diaper Lover, Carer
Were would you put donations from the people who do not belong to any corporation or business. Sure they have less impact than the big business, but they do have impact, should the wilson family get a patch by the left shoulder? Perhaps the coat flap by the left buttock for the Soles family?

Campaign finances I believe are pretty transparent, anyone who wants to see who gave what can simply request the documents.
 

kite

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,936
Role
Diaper Lover, Diaperfur, Carer
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.
but isn't that the essence of true democracy? it's not perfect and always borderline chaotic, but everyone gets to have their say. not just a democrat or a republican, because they have sponsorships from fox or cnn get a say, but all of them.
and yes, any high end contributers get a patch too. i forget what the maximum is for personal monitary endorsements, but i would say the top 1% get a special patch as well. i know it sounds crazy, but there's too much of the big cooperations playing puppet master rather than the citizens getting a fare shake. remember, the government needs to fear it's citizens not mime them to death.
 

dogboy

Est. Contributor
Messages
19,850
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover
I don't think any of the candidates could find a jacket big enough to display all of their sponsors. Today McCain announced how cozy and friendly he is to the President of Georgia, having been there several times. It turns out that a lot of money is funneled through Georgia's lobbyists into the coffers of Mr. McCain. Yes, I think the candidates would have to wear large tents to carry all of their sponsors.
 

kite

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,936
Role
Diaper Lover, Diaperfur, Carer
well it was either mccain or obama that had a party team member who was in close ties with them as well. the more and more i try to deny it, the more it seems that these guys are just clones.
 
Messages
1,113
Role
Other
I believe that you would find that they have pretty much the same companies sponsoring both candidates.
 

DLGrif

Est. Contributor
Messages
529
Role
Diaper Lover, Babyfur
I'd like to emphasize that this is only my opinion, and I'm not trying to belittle you in any way.

But this is a horrible idea. Politicians are not performers, they're beauty stars. If you pay attention to the way they meticulously groom themselves, you'll notice how they appear exactly the same in every picture with only some variations on the suit. Forcing them to attach sponsor tags to their jackets would make them look horribly tacky, and the presidential elections would be even more of a farce.

As said before, attaching a politician to a business is also unnecessarily risky for both. In America we pretend that politics do not play favorites, despite the fact we consistently give some industries gratuitous subsidies. On top of that, if the candidate drops out of favor, so do all of the sponsors that supported him openly.

Just as a final note, remember the first purpose of sponsor jackets. It's not necessarily a badge of honor to be supported by Pepsi; for many, it just means an easy and harmless way to milk Pepsi for the money you need to tune up your car, and your looks aren't doing you any good. Politicians may charge higher rates for their jacket space, but I seriously doubt any of them will consider the monetary difference (compared to conventional or underground fundraising) over the loss of a mature, clean image.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top