Corporate Sponsorship of Campaigns - Good Idea or Great Idea?

You may have heard about the popular host of the Colbert Report Stephen Colbert's presidential bid coming to a tragic end. Sadly, the Democratic party of South Carolina rejected his bid to run in their primary despite being wined and dined. I was quite disappointed, but I'm not focusing on my democratic rights being trampled on by the Democrats. I'm here to talk about his "The Hail to the Cheese Stephen Colbert Nacho Cheese Doritos' 2008 Presidential Campaign."

"The Hail to the Cheese Stephen Colbert Nacho Cheese Doritos' 2008 Presidential Campaign" is in my opinion a novel, ingenious idea that could, unlike the McCain-Feingold Bill, bring about true reform in the way campaigns are financed and ran. Questions were raised about the legality of Doritos sponsoring "The Hail to the Cheese Stephen Colbert Nacho Cheese Doritos' 2008 Presidential Campaign," as corporations aren't suppose to give money to candidate's campaigns, but I see no problem. (He changed it to the "The Hail to the Cheese Stephen Colbert Nacho Cheese Doritos' 2008 Presidential Campaign Coverage.") Corporations already find ways to support candidates who's platforms align with their goals, or to buy them off, whether by forming Political Action Committees or telling their employees to make donations. If that's the case, which it is, then how would it not be better to have candidate's wear their supporters on their sleeves? For example, many accuse the Bush administration of having close ties to Halliburton, so what would have been wrong with the Halliburton's Non-Bid Contract for America Bush-Cheney Quail Hunt for the White House 2008 Presidential Campaign? At least you would know where their interests lie. (Yes I know the Contract for America was from 1994, but I couldn't resist)

But there is an even better reason for having corporate sponsorships of campaigns. When its a corporate sponsorship its no longer about a quid pro quo for if and when their candidate is elected, (I paid for your campaign, you pass this bill that happens to help out our bottom line) but about advertisement. Do you really think Doritos was supporting Colbert's campaign so that when he was elected president he would be pro-junk food? (Not banning Doritos in vending machines in public schools, etc.) Of course not, he was only running for president in one state, that would never happen. (If he was running in every state though, he might have had a shot, his supports would be voting two, three times for him on election day if he asked.) Doritos just wants people to buy their product. It doesn't even really matter whether a candidate wins or loses, as long as their name is out there. Thus, if we allowed outright corporate sponsorship of campaigns, we remove corruption from the political process, and at the same time stimulate the economy by encouraging Americans to do what they do best, consume.

And finally, why stop at corporate sponsorship of campaigns? Why not help fund our democratic process by having everything from the Pepsi Presidential Debates, the Capital One Capitol Building, the McCain-Verizon Straight Talk Express, to the Nabisco Democratic Convention. (the last one I stole from NBC's the West Wing) We could use the money to help pay down the National City National Debt. I propose all these reforms be made into law in the RoundUp Weed Out Corruption Campaign Reform Bill. After all, can we expect our businesses to be good corporate citizens if they can't contribute to campaigns like citizens?

(I just proposed corporate sponsorship of campaigns, I'm not above corporate sponsorship of my blog. So if your interested, arrangements can be made.)