Political Jamming

by GIL

Corporations are close as can be to owning our public officials.  The simple economics of a political campaign have become so costly that without corporate sponsorship a candidate can not afford to run.  We often look for campaign finance reform as he solution, but every attempt at such legislation is either voted down or watered down to the point of uselessness.  Those politicians who fight against the system never have the money to compete and are drowned out.  In essence there is no free speech, only very expensive speech.  How many community issues have failed because corporation's slick ads and billboards outnumbered the communities adds a thousand to one.

This being said, I wonder if it is not time to use these advertisements against them.  What if we could make politicians like race car drivers where their sponsorship is on their uniform.  If we know who Dale Earnheart's sponsors are why shouldn't we know our representative's.  Why not use their own signage against them.  We have all seen the hundreds of lawn signs and posters during election time.  With a little creativity (and an admitted loose regard for the law ... not unlike theirs often) it would be easy to jam those signs much like Artists have done against the cigarette industry and elsewhere.  Let people know that a vote for rep. X is a vote for Enron. By using their own signage there is the doubling effect.  You eliminate one pro sign, and create one negative sign.  It is a basic statement against the unequal power of money in our democracy.  Where so much wealth is concentrated in so few we are not equal in this political system.  Until that equality is achieved either through reform or revolution we must find the means to voice our protest.

-GIL

Comments

[John]

Gil and otheres,

This is a great idea. It will never work but a great idea not the less.

With that said Gil it is no surprize that you just mentioned so called republican backing companys. You would be very surprised that many of these company's give to both party's and many times candidates running against each other. The Cig. industery gives to both sides and with good reason, to protect them self.

It would be great to see people run for office just as them self no strings to anyone or group that will never happen.

[GIL]

Actually I am not as nieve as to believe that corperations do not fill the coffers of both democrats and republicans (Enron did quite a bit of buisness with the democratic legislature of California for instance). In todays society canidates are much like branded products. They project an immage more than deal with substantive issues. By linking them to say child labor practices of a corperation that uses free trade zones (Say by tagging a sign that says vote for Duke Norman with "he supports sending our jobs to Disney's sweat shops in China") you gain a variety of benifits. One you change a positive endorsement into link to negative practices. Second you highlight the bad labor practices of these corperations. If the campaign gets widespread or publicity those signs can become issues which the canidate must address. You can in effect broaden the debate of corperate practices further into the public arena, and link those issues to the politicians who benifit from corporate donations. At the least people who see these sgns before they are taken down will have those issues in their minds when it comes time to vote. If the practice becomes common as add jamming has, it will force canidates to look at who is giving them money to avoid negative publicity. While I admit this is using some extrapalation it might be interesting to experiment and see what happens.

-GIL

[April]

Bwahaha! Great post.

[Douglass]

The NASCAR style sponsorship is a magnificent idea.

Until then;

http://www.opensecrets.org/

Gives some info about candidates that is readily accessible and easily understood by laypeople like me.