I remember in 2000, when total spending for the cycle for all offices from President to Alderman first exceeded $1 billion, the whiners like McCain were complaining in full voice, but that same year, Proctor & Gamble spent more than $3 billion advertising their personal hygiene and cleaning products. How can it be "excessive" to spend a third of what's spent on toothpaste and soap on our political future? Not to mention the political numbers were for a two-year cycle, while P&G advertises at that level EVERY year . . .
Its "excessive" because it is also excessive to spend $3 billion on selling soap. It is excessive because we do not trust companies to advertise to us based on honest virtues that make them better than their competitors, but we should be voting based on the best candidate rather than the most suave advertising campaign.
No comments:
Post a Comment