Originally posted by ClintK
Look, let me spell it out for those of you who actually agree with this decision.
They stopped researching the question of whether money makes a difference in political campaigns about three decades ago because it was obvious in
every study: it DOES. The better financed campaign is more likely to win. PERIOD. Nobody even questions this any more.
So that means whoever can get more money is more likely to win power. And the candidates most likely to get the most are the ones most supportive of
the status quo, especially those who have lots of money already.
That's unamerican and scummy.
I've tried to spell it out as simply as I can.
In terms of "spelling" your opinion out, it would have been nice if you would have mentioned who "they" were who "stopped" researching the
question whether money makes a difference in political campaigns.
The idea that money alone makes the difference in influencing demographics is demonstrably false. There are countless corporations and businesses who
have invested millions and even billions of dollars on ad campaigns that failed to sell their product.
Most recently the McDonald's corporation has experienced problems in PR due to its "giveaway" campaigns where they give free toys or products in
packages such as "Happy Meals" for children. One such campaign involved teaming up with GM to give children free toy models of the Hummer they
hoped to influence the parents of children by giving away 42 million toy Hummers in "Happy Meals". This campaign failed to sell any significant
Hummers for GM and proved to be disastrous for McDonald's in terms of PR. Only a few months later, McDonald's blundered again when they attempted a
giveaway campaign in Japan offering free MP3 players that came with free ten songs and unfortunately for McDonald's a Trojan virus as well.
GM also experienced a misfire and loss of investment when Chevrolet teamed with NBC's The Apprentice launching a commercial contest where the winner
would get a Chevy Tahoe. Consumers were encouraged to visit a special website created by Chevy that allowed the consumer to customize their own
version of Chevy Tahoe commercials. It didn't take long for anti-SUV commercials to appear on this Chevy Tahoe web site and Chevrolet failed to take
control of the situation and the attention created by these anti-commercials went viral sweeping the internet and was a dramatic disaster for GM.
Sony attempted to capitalize on diversity by using a black woman and a white woman in one advertisement, but blundered by having the white woman
holding the black woman's jaw, and while this ad was only run in the Netherlands the controversy and debate it sparked was world wide. Sony
complicated the matters by at first defending the ad, only to have to finally pull the billboards and apologize for the controversy it created.
Intel blundered by featuring an ad of white man surrounded by six sprinters who all happened to be black. The artistic vision, if one can call it
that, behind the ad was to convey the performance capabilities of their product by using the metaphor of the sprinters. What happened instead was a
public reaction offended by six black man all bowing down before one white man and Intel had to pull the ads and apologize profusely.
These are just a very few examples of large amounts of money invested with the full on intent of influencing peoples decision making only to backfire
and cost large amounts of money as well as great damage to the credibility of the corporations that made these investments.
Further, the insistence that Corporations should not be entitled to free speech because of their status in wealth, arguing that such wealth can be
used to influence people adversely, is an elitist attitude that implies that individuals are incapable of making informed decisions and are just
mindless automatons that only respond to propaganda and advertising.
[edit on 23-1-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]