Pages Menu
Categories Menu

Posted by on Jun 5, 2012 in Arts & Entertainment, At TMV, Politics, Satire | 13 comments

America’s Next Step On The Road To Moolacracy

Thought privatization couldn’t be taken to more idiotic heights in this country? Thought that money couldn’t play an even larger role in our national political circus? Read on.

Two senators, Tom Coburn (a Republican) and Mark Udall (a Democrat) have introduced a bill that would have their parties’ national conventions paid for with private money, rather than the public funding that now does the job. And where, one might ask, might such a change lead? The answers are currently right before our eyes.

Tune into a baseball game on TV. Watch when a fly ball is hit to the outfield. Right behind the outfielder you’ll see along the entire run of bleachers advertisements for various products. Would there be similar bleacher ads in the halls where Republicans and Democrats hold their conventions? Of course. You gotta pay the rent on the hall, right?

The Olympics help with their own funding by having “official” products of one sort or another. Like the official rye bread of the summer games. Or the official ear wax of the winter games. Might we have in the future an official computer of a Democratic convention? An official soft drink of a Republican convention? Who but a socialist would think otherwise, or believe this wouldn’t be another demonstration of American political exceptionalism?

Once this bipartisan initiative gets approved and in full gear, ad banners on balconies and official sponsorships of certain products would doubtless be just starters on this leap into political party free enterprise. I’m thinking the NASCAR model here. Not just an Obama pin on one lapel and an Apple badge on the other, or Romney on one lapel and Coca-Cola on the other (or vice-versa). I’m thinking entire delegate body suits covered with ads. And maybe when the party candidate him- or herself comes forth to accept the nomination, this worthy might we wearing a robe with a meat market ad on the back like the one provided by Rocky Balboa’s soon to be brother-in-law in “Rocky One.”

A silly idea? Maybe only in thinking such an ad would be from a meat market rather than a national brand of some sort.

Let’s be honest here. Money will pick the ultimate winner of this year’s presidential election and the ones that follow. So why not in the future have money also pay for the conventions that pick these winners? It makes sense. At least in a moolacracy.

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2012 The Moderate Voice
  • slamfu

    The idea that unregulated and completely unrestricted business is going to fix everything is a sickness that has taken ahold of the American mindset. People have forgotten that as often as not people need protection from these “job creators” and that is one of the most critical functions of the govt. 100 years ago, workplace fatalities were over 100x as likely because there were no regulations for safety or safety training. The casualty rate for electrical line workers was 28% in the first 2 years in the early 1900’s. Govt is far from perfect, but so is big business. How is it big business got the rep as the guys that would fix things, when just 4 short years ago they almost brought this nation to its knees?

  • Dr. J

    God forbid advertising disrupt the dignified atmosphere of party conventions. Is no “problem” too absurd to justify government spending?

  • The_Ohioan

    I didn’t know the conventions were paid for by public funding and would support any effort to remedy that situation.

    Even the Romans weren’t required to pay for their bread and circuses – why should we? I can’t think anyone will be influenced by any advertising – no one watches them anyway.

  • Anna

    I’ve long felt that elected officials should have uniforms similar to NASCAR drivers…so we’d at least have the benefit of knowing who’s bought and paid for our politicians since they sure as hell aren’t working for us. The bigger the donation, the bigger the logo on the uniform.

  • rudi

    LOL This is a grate idea. Lets the politicians be bought and paid for by Hustler magazine. Larry Flynt could have his writers draft speeches. This moment at the Republican convention brought to you by Preparation X…

  • slamfu

    Wow we are really screwed. Layer after layer of even the pretense of our leaders making their own decisions about our future is being stripped away to show us the fact that they are just all on the take from their big donors.

  • slamfu

    Can someone show me any real difference between what we used to call bribery and what we now call free speech after Citizens United? Please.

  • dduck

    So you and I pay for the conventions. And they do a bang up I’m sure since the department in charge is the GSA, I think:
    GSA Scandal: So What Does $823,000 Buy You in Las Vegas?”

    Read more:

    Maybe the private sector can get the job done for less money than the GSA can and we can put up with the ads to save the economy some bucks.

  • Rcoutme

    I like the idea of corporate sponsorship for these things. It may finally show once and for all to the masses that our ‘corporate overlords’ really don’t care which candidate we vote for, so long as they get to pick the options. Republicans loved floating out the huge sums that Obama got from Wall Street during his first run. What they failed to mention (some failed even to realize) was that Goldman Sachs was either the top or one of the top donors for BOTH CAMPAIGNS.

    If those paying for the conventions were to have advertising space equivalent to their donations, voters might finally recognize that the same people are backing both sides. That might, just might, finally wake up a few of them.

  • Dr. J

    Slam, bribery is paying an official money in exchange for bending the rules for you. Free speech is publishing ideas in an effort to convince someone of something.

    The key differences, besides that one is illegal and the other is legally protected, is that bribery involves a quid-pro-quo for an improper exercise of power. Free speech involves no quid-pro-quo, just asking for something. And in the case of asking citizens to vote or not vote for someone, what you’re asking them for would be a proper use of their power.

  • Jim Satterfield

    Dr. J,

    Modern bribery is paying big bucks to get your guy in office and keep him there so your friends in ALEC can write the changes in laws you need to make more money. But of course that’s only part one. Part two is where your guy gets a very well paying position after leaving office helping you lobby his former colleagues.

  • Dr. J

    Jim, I’d agree that was bribery if (a) you were actually paying the big bucks to the guy and (b) deciding which interest group to favor weren’t his job. As it is, neither the quid-pro-quo nor the improper-exercise-of-power conditions seem to be met.

  • zephyr

    All hair splitting aside, anyone who is paying attention has to realize the current system is in essence bribery dressed up to pass in mixed company.

Twitter Auto Publish Powered By :