How to Deal with Unlimited Corporate Spending in Political Advertising

In January of this year, the United States Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, ruled that there cannot be restrictions on campaign spending by corporations, overturning years of campaign reform laws in this country. The Supreme Court felt that corporations should have the same free speech rights as individuals. While the majority of people in the United States disagree with this decision according to an ABC News/Washington Post poll, it is quite clear they are wrong. After all, is it really a stretch to believe that the campaign dollars of a small and proudly American company like Wal-Mart would not be spent in a manner that reflects the feelings and wishes of the hundreds of thousands of people that work for the company and shop there everyday? I simply can't imagine the company going to bat for a candidate that is known as being anti-Union if that's not what its employees want.

US citizens are complaining that a flood of corporate money is going to suddenly create an atmosphere in which corporate sponsored advertisements will sway elections. Worse,they say, our airwaves will be filled from sometime last Tuesday until the next election with negative campaign ads. So what can be done? After seeing thirteen straight drug commercials during a night of drinking and marathon CNN watching, the answer came to me. Let me explain.

You've seen drug ads. People with depression, erectile dysfunction, bladder issues, and dry eyes look sad, horny, distressed, or wide-eyed. A voice over talks about the horrors of their condition and how Erectabilifyalisatasis (TM) can help you perk up, get it up, hold it in, and blink with just one little pill that costs more per month than you make in a week. And then, as they show the happy couple lazing in the filth-filled bathtubs that someone thoughtfully put on a pristine beach, or show the woman taking the razor away from her wrist, smiling and running a marathon without stopping to pee, they list the side effects. "WARNING: Antidepressiboneraze (TM) may cause heart attacks, stroke, fever, athletes foot, unhappiness, suicidal thoughts, liver damage, premature aging, rust, achy joints, global warming, sudden appreciation for Pauly Shore, sudden appreciation for Jersey Shore, armpit flatulence, speaking in tongues, halitosis, and excessive earwax."

And there it is. You want to fix political advertising? Then urge Congress to pass a law saying that anyone can put all the money they want toward advertising for any candidate. They just have to make sure that they list the side effects of electing that candidate at the end of the ad. Imagine the possibilities....

Barack Obama -- While the country may experience sudden euphoria and freedom from guilt, this feeling will not last. Side effects include inability to act, inability to get along with coworkers, and analysis paralysis. Barack Obama may cause short term memory loss resulting in blaming people for things that aren't their fault.

Sarah Palin -- Side effects may include delusions of grandeur, disproportional indignance, reduced intelligence, difficulty reading, and sudden potential for nuclear war.

Bill Clinton -- Side effects may include pornographic congressional hearings, increased income, and paranoia about the safety of female family members.

George W. Bush -- Side effects may include speech problems, inability to listen, verbal diarrhea, and a narrowing of the esophagus when eating salty snacks. Do not make important decisions or operate heavy machinery when electing George W. Bush.

It is time that the American people stand up for their time tested rights to learn everything we really need to know by watching advertisements. By adding these brief, rapidly read disclaimers to political advertisements, we'll enable that 3% of the public that does not yet have TIVO to make wise decisions.

My name is Crutnacker and I approved this article.