Corporate sponsorship as a natural and necessary part of our economic system has grown massively, and in my mind, monstrously, from when I was a pre- teenager in the 1940's. When Weber Bread sponsored the Lone Ranger, a hero of mine who I preferred over Red Ryder, a radio competitor sponsored by Langendorf Bread, I would dutifully try to talk my mom into buying Weber Bread and make disparaging comments about Langendorf. Sponsorship had effects, inoccuous but real. Sponsorship magnified its role when TV came into play, entire programs and specials took on the names of the sponsor. That Hallmark should sponsor sentimental dramas seemed natural enough, as did Colgate with their bright, smiling presentations. And when Timex put its name on a periodic Jazz Special, fantastic! Loved the jazz performances, but Timex got a lot of credit.
More recently sponsorship has encroached in ways that are not only much less inoccuous, but are becoming offensive and even destructive in their effects. Sponsor naming rights in athletics I personally find offensive, though it certainly has no negative societal impact in itself. Naming a college football bowl game for its sponsor, to me sounds ridiculous. At something called a Chick-a-fils Bowl one might expect to see a chicken mating contest, not football teams competing. Why not just stick with a Gator Bowl, Sun Bowl, Orange Bowl, or Rose Bowl? But that is really petty. A simple matter of money and economics and profit. It's our system, just live with it. Visibility is key to success in a thriving free enterprise system.
It is when it comes to corporate political sponsorship that the effects become detrimental, and threaten the viability of our entire democratic political system. The role of corporate money in electing candidates can not be underestimated, nor can the open revolving door that exists between corporate CEO's, high governmental office, and paid lobbyists that keep the funds and influence peddling flowing. Political contributions coming from individual contributors, from the shrinking middle class, and from labor unions with their declining membership and power can in no way match that raised through corporate coffers. If numerous press reports are accurate, some recent presidential candidates, elected senators, and current governors were massively bankrolled by a select individual or corporate head, and have maintained or could be expected to honor close contact with the donor on issues of significance. Gov. Scott Walker's relationship with the Koch Bros is well reported, does their sponsorship merit his being labelled the Koch Bros Governor of Wisconsin? Are we moving towards a WalMart Senator from Texas, or a Citibank or at&t Presidency? We have already had a virtual Halliburton Corp Vice Presidency for 8 years during the Bush administration, and we know how that worked out for us--endless warfare in the Middle East and the worst economic decline in 70 years. What is good for a corporation is not necessarily good for the nation as a whole. When a major corporation CEO, serving in a high government office during the 1950's, made a statement that what was good for his company was good for the United States, he was roundly criticized. Now, corporations can become too big to fail, the government must save them despite their having policies that have severely damaged the economy. Finding a way to reverse the momentum and direction of these changes involving the accumulation of corporate power is, in my mind, essential, but will be a real challenge.
The extent and insidious effects of corporate sponsorship of candidates in our political system does threaten democracy as we know it. Our individual votes are equal, but the capacity we as individuals have to influence government is in no way equal, and won't be until the role and influence of money becomes more balanced. Benito Mussolini is reported to have said that facsism exists when corporatism becomes merged with democracy in the political system. If that is true, we may unknowingly be getting closer to that state than we realize. Perhaps the Supreme Court should have read Mussolini's quote before rendering it's ill-considered Citizen's United decision. Corporate sponsorship has grown immensely during the last 60 years. When it enters the political sphere, the danger is real, it should be taken very, very seriously.
