• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Forcing politicians to wear logos of corporate sponsors

Augustus

Augustus

…
Popular memes calling for politicians to wear the logos of their corporate sponsors have circulated the internet for years, but the suggestion may soon be a reality for California legislators. In the next week, a potential ballot measure, submitted to the Office of the Attorney General in October, is expected to receive title and summary for the 2016 election, meaning its advocates will be able to collect signatures in order to secure its official place on the ballot. The proposed law would require legislators and candidates to sport the emblems of groups that donate money to their campaigns.


http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-...oon-be-forced-wear-logos-top-corporate-donors


I think that this is a great idea.

The public should be able to easily identify who is buying their legislators in the name of transparency. Of course it would probably end up with lots of shell companies, etc. but a politician who was seen to be concealing their donors, and companies that were trying to hide their donations would also lead to interesting questions.

What do you think?
 
Quetzal

Quetzal

A little to the left and slightly out of focus.
Premium Member
Augustus said:
I think that this is a great idea.

The public should be able to easily identify who is buying their legislators in the name of transparency. Of course it would probably end up with lots of shell companies, etc. but a politician who was seen to be concealing their donors, and companies that were trying to hide their donations would also lead to interesting questions.

What do you think?
Click to expand...
I think it is a good idea, too. But here is the thing. There are a lot of fact checkers out there all over the internet and one thing remains the same: no one seems to care. The same percentage of the voting population who vote for candidates regardless of integrity will continue to do so regardless.
 
allfoak

allfoak

Alchemist
Brickjectivity said:
I'd have to think about it. Reps would start sporting Pepsi and Gatorade patches. They'd be covered from head to toe.
Click to expand...

If they want to act like clowns they should look the part.

Nothing personal towards clowns.
Just a euphemism.

aaa-116674857994_xlarge.jpeg
 
Draka

Draka

Wonder Woman
I would support a sort of sash like apparel like Scouts wear. When running for political office all public appearances would require the adorning of a sash which has a patch representing each corporate donor. That would work.
 
Laika

Laika

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Should I be happy that all illusions of democratic government and public service are dispesnsed with and we expect only that politicians are for sale and can do no better?

Once they branded slaves. now they brand politicians. What does that make us?

I'm a cynic but I still find the symbolism a bitter pill to swallow.
 
Draka

Draka

Wonder Woman
Laika said:
Should I be happy that all illusions of democratic government and public service are dispesnsed with and we expect only that politicians are for sale and can do no better?

Once they branded slaves. now they brand politicians. What does that make us?

I'm a cynic but I still find the symbolism a bitter pill to swallow.
Click to expand...
Sure would give us at least some idea of who really is looking out for us and not the bottom line. Not only seeing what connections they have, but how many. I know I would be looking for the ones with the barest sashes. If endorsements were included it would certainly speak even more though. To see certain organizations depicted as well would be telling. Then it wouldn't be so much the barest sashes, but their true content. It is always said that a picture speaks louder than words, well, the patches would speak volumes. So no matter what pandering a politician truly does we could see for ourselves, at a glance, where their true loyalties lie.
 
allfoak

allfoak

Alchemist
Laika said:
Should I be happy that all illusions of democratic government and public service are dispesnsed with and we expect only that politicians are for sale and can do no better?
Click to expand...

No.
You should be even less happy that many have no idea that this is even happening.
 
David1967

David1967

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
I think it's a great idea. It would reveal to us who we were really voting for. And I imagine we may all be very surprised.
 
Laika

Laika

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Draka said:
Sure would give us at least some idea of who really is looking out for us and not the bottom line. Not only seeing what connections they have, but how many. I know I would be looking for the ones with the barest sashes. If endorsements were included it would certainly speak even more though. To see certain organizations depicted as well would be telling. Then it wouldn't be so much the barest sashes, but their true content. It is always said that a picture speaks louder than words, well, the patches would speak volumes. So no matter what pandering a politician truly does we could see for ourselves, at a glance, where their true loyalties lie.
Click to expand...

I strongly suspect it would have the opposite effect. The people with the barest sashes will be self-funded and will therefore be the most wealthy individuals within the place. When people vote against their sponsers, they will not be seen as men or women of principle, but a "bad investment". people won't sponser them and they will simply lose their election because they won't be funded at all. this isn't just advertising politicians loyalities- it's enforcing them too by turning a legislative body into a marketplace. We have already got to a point where the democratic process has reduced voters to little more than consumers, political parties are brands, and politicians have to "market" themselves as attractive or "charismatic" personalities, high on rhetoric, low on substance. In any election, sensationalism gets more airtime than level headed discussions of policy. theatre sells, democracy doesn't. we'd rather believe politicians are corrupt than accept that, as consumers, we can't have everything we want. this is just a way to publicly humilate politicians and discipline them to enforce cynicism. we should demand more from our politicians than the ability to pick up a pay cheque.

you can put the logos on them, but that doesn't tell you what they actually believe. if anything it says "we couldn't care about you or your principles; just believe in the highest bidder."
 
Sunstone

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
Draka said:
I would support a sort of sash like apparel like Scouts wear. When running for political office all public appearances would require the adorning of a sash which has a patch representing each corporate donor. That would work.
Click to expand...

The problem with your plan is there is not enough cloth manufactured each year for the size the sashes would need to be to hold logos of all the sponsors.
 
Augustus

Augustus

…
Draka said:
I would support a sort of sash like apparel like Scouts wear. When running for political office all public appearances would require the adorning of a sash
Click to expand...

I would love to see how this worked in Northern Ireland, not sure Gerry Adams or other Sinn Fein members would be too keen on appearing in public wearing a sash :seenoevil:

2343900738.jpg


[The sash is emblematic of the ultra pro-British Orange Order]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top