Who's Your Daddy?

It’s hard to find any facet of today’s life that lacks a sponsor. The sporting world is rife with patches and logos galore. Even highlights and statistics updates have some corporate name associated with each tidbit. Arenas have corporate sponsors that gain the right to add their name to that particular venue. No, advertising seems to be central to our daily way of life and no one seems to be immune from the temptation of receiving large sums of money in return for proudly displaying the names of corporate sponsors. Except one: politics.

Why is it that those who receive large contributions from specific industries are averse to publicizing the association? Could it be that, if we knew of the association, we might be averse to supporting that particular politico? Would we support a sports team if they played in “Pharmaceutical Park” or “Bankers’ Arena”? Probably not as enthusiastically, perhaps. And that is why politicians avoid naming their “sponsors”. Many of them would likely leave a bad taste in the electorate’s mouth. And that is exactly the reason why we should press for some way to identify who’s paying the bills for our representatives.

How about requiring each elected representative to wear lapel pins representing his top three donors. Perhaps an oil derrick for the oil industry or a band aid for healthcare providers or a snake for the lawyer lobby. We could think up some good ones, I’d say, and then we could all look at our guys and gals and tell immediately who’s in bed with whom. Radio and print would be required to add voiceovers or captions to identify the top three, too. “Joe Doaks, Congressman, East Carolina, Tobacco/Mining/NRA” as an example. Granted, some may find those sponsors likable and that’s OK, too. The point is that each voter will be able to instantly approve or disapprove of their representatives choice of friends and react accordingly.

Don’t expect this idea to get a warm reception in the halls of political power. Most elected officials prefer the perception of independence from special interest groups while accepting donations from the very same folks. And those “folks” much prefer the anonymity, too, so as to appear interested in an even playing field while ponying up big bucks for access and influence. Sorry, but the independent politician is extinct in today’s system. It takes big bucks to run for office and those bucks come from somewhere. And as soon as the first dollar is accepted, independence walks right out the front door.

There is an additional, perhaps greater, benefit to this proposal: since no donor would want to appear on the lapel of a supposedly unbiased official, most groups would seek to be number four or lower on the list of contributors. This means that contributions would start to decline in search of that lower tier and, as soon as number four became number three, the cash flow would be further reduced. Over time, the coffers begin to dry up and the next thing you know, public financing of campaigns is readily adopted by all seeking a seat at the public service table. And then, maybe, we may be able to once again elect truly independent candidates.

We know what sponsors are bringing us our television, newspaper, sports, and just about everything else. Isn’t it time that we are equally aware of who’s bringing us our politicians and the laws they endorse? I think so. If you do, too, send this on to someone  else. That’s how grass roots efforts get started, you know.