"Don't Buy the Politics Corporations Are Selling" - A media campaign concept

[Tom Rinaldo]

A tsunami of corporate money in politics is rapidly approaching. There may be effective long term strategies to contain or reverse it, but that wave of cold corporate political cash will arrive on our literal and virtual doorsteps by this summer at the latest. There is no way liberal activists, or even progressive PACs and Unions, can match it dollar for dollar, so I propose that we make a preemptive strike against it, and call it out wholesale in advance. The way I think we can most easily do that is to tap directly into populist distrust of "big money interests".

Slogans like I used in this OP title, and stuff like "If it really made sense why do they have to spend that many dollars trying to convince us?" can be used to make people naturally suspicious of all super funded political propaganda while simultaneously highlighting the adverse effects of the Supreme Court ruling, and stoking public opposition to it.

I remember when I lived in California, where there are always a dozen or more public referendums on the ballot, leaning a simple rule of thumb for deciding how to vote on all of them: Vote against the money. Most of the propositions were worded with 1984 "War is Peace" double talk, but the clear give away was always who had enough money to plaster the entire state with billboards? Whoever it was, vote opposite became my almost automatic mantra.

We need to start teaching the public that trick by making them suspicious any time massive amounts of media time get bought by corporations to promote a candidate. Tap into anti Wall Street fury and broaden it. Foster "who do they think I am to think they can buy my vote that way?" thinking. Condition knee jerk rejection of corporate funded candidates BECAUSE they are corporate funded candidates, and in that way start to turn their money advantage around against them.

[boomerbust]

1. The corps are depending on an ill informed electorate

Just another battle Obama will have to wage.

[NoFace]

2. We need more transparency to identify Corporate Politicians....

...not more slogans (in my opinion).

[Tom Rinaldo]

3. Why do you oppose one against the other?

What do you think all political campaigns employ? What was "Yes We Can" or "Change is coming to America"? Of course we need as much transparency as possible to identify corporate politicians. We also need to effectively compete against them, and that involves communications which often comes down to finding a short and powerful way to convey your message. What I suggested serves a dual function; it invites examination of the motives behind corporations that directly fund candidate campaigns, AND it pushes the change in our election campaign finance laws front and center, not everyone in the public is paying as much attention to this as we are.

[laughingliberal]

4. Good points. Messaging needs to change from 'special interests,' to 'moneyed interests.' nt

[Tom Rinaldo]

6. Good point also

"Their" rallying cry has always been against "Big Government", ours should now be against "Big Money". Our use of the term "corporate special interests" as a target almost sounds snobbish and elitist in comparison to those who say the enemy is "big government".

[laughingliberal]

13. We have never figured out how to appeal at that emotional level the way the right has

We tend to assume having the facts on our side will win the day. Not sure why we still think that after losing the debate with this strategy for 3 decades. "Big Money," would work. "Wealthy Interests," would work. "Wall Street Shysters," would work well right now. I think, "Leisure Class" would work very well. The other side has been successful at turning public sentiment against the 'lazy, shiftless, poor," who are taking your money for years. I think the thought of filthy rich people sitting by the pool all day taking your money might gain traction. The Republicans have been successful with the whole message of 'punishing wealth.' It's time to start talking about how the current tax system "punishes work," and rewards those who are stealing 'your' money.

[Tom Rinaldo]

14. This is exactly the way we need to start thinking

I psrticulary like your phrase about how the current system "punishes work". As to the type of campaign I am proposing, one emotional tie in would be to say something like "With just one percent of the money that our largest banks give out each year as bonuses to their traders and executives, they now can buy any seat in Congress. Will you let them?"

[laughingliberal]

15. Good. How about this:

"Wall Street and Big Banks got filthy rich stealing the money you worked hard for. Now, they're buying Congress with it to make sure they stay that way." (Video of the suits laughing it up/split screen of working guy trying to balance bank book, shaking head) Voice over: Are you going to let them get away with it?

[Tom Rinaldo]

16. Sure. Stuff like that

I might say "Now the Supreme Court says it's OK for them to buy Congress with it..." cut back to your language and then end with "Don't buy the politics corporations are selling, don't let them drown out our voice."

[laughingliberal]

17. Perfect! nt

[Hello_Kitty]

5. I tell people when in doubt vote "no" on ballot propositions.

Voting against them maintains the status quo.

[Tom Rinaldo]

9. I understand

It's not so much that the status quo is always wonderful and deserves to be maintained, but usually the only ones who can afford the costs involved in an effort to change the status quo via that route want to change it for the worse.

[Hello_Kitty]

10. Yep. Voting no is erring on the safe side.

Sometimes it means you're voting against a good proposition but most props are so deceptively worded it's hard to tell the wheat from the chaff.

[Tom Rinaldo]

12. Of course even then you have to be careful in California

When it suits their purposes reactionary forces word it so that "no" votes are what they really want, lots of playing with double negatives and the like.

[DaveofCali]

7. Good Idea

Knowing something about marketing, conditioning is an effective tactic, and I think could help along with preemption in fighting back against the large corporate money that will come in during these elections, along with commercials / ads during election season publishing a list of "fake voter associations", the front organizations that big corporations will hide under in order to fund these political ads (since who is paying for the ad still needs to be disclosed.)

[Tom Rinaldo]

8. I like your idea also

"publishing a list of 'fake voter associations',front organizations that big corporations will hide under in order to fund these political ads". The general public might not be prone toward consulting that list, but lazy media reporters might with all that work done for them in advance.

You wrote "conditioning is an effective tactic". I gigured there must be some type of PR term to identify that type of strategy, but I didn't know what it was :)

Not to employ some strategies learned from marketing would be foolish for us now given that our dollars need to be stretched far compared to theirs.

[Tom Rinaldo]

11. Just curious

You mentioned "knowing something about marketing", any first hand knowledge of a "conditioning" campaign that was effective?

[Odin2005]

18. K&R

[Tom Rinaldo]

19. Thanks...

I'm not saying this is the best solution to this matter, just that I think it can help, it can be done immediately, and it's something our side can find the resources to launch without having to convince anyone else to come over to our side in order to ennact it.