Skip to main content

What do Anheuser-Busch, Hewlett-Packard, and the International Bottled Water Association have in common?

They've all conspired to keep third-party candidates out of the Presidential debates:

From the New York Times:

When the final presidential debate is held on Long Island on Wednesday night, little attention will be paid to who exactly is sponsoring the event: the beer giant Anheuser-Busch; the International Bottled Water Association, a trade group; and EDS, a subsidiary of the technology company Hewlett-Packard....

“We are very concerned,” said George Farah, executive director at Open Debates, a nonpartisan group critical of the commission. “We don’t think that this most sacred forum should be brought to you by Anheuser-Busch.”

Corporations are barred from making campaign contributions, but they can donate to the Commission on Presidential Debates, whose two co-chairmen are former heads of the two major political parties. In addition, sponsors receive tickets to the events allowing them to “hobnob with campaign staff advisers and managers who will be senior advisers in the next administration,” Mr. Farah said.

Janet Brown, executive director of the commission, said fund-raising for the debates was “difficult,” since opportunities for product placement and marketing are not the same as at the two political conventions or other widely attended events.

“We are really grateful to the corporations,” Ms. Brown said. “They see it as part of civic and community support, and they don’t get a lot for it. They don’t get any access to candidates, and their name is not mentioned on air.”

Frank J. Fahrenkopf Jr., the Republican chairman of the commission and the president of the American Gaming Association, a trade group, said corporations had “no control, input or say. They are only giving as good citizens.”

The commission’s Web site lists eight national sponsors of the three presidential debates and one vice-presidential debate. They include BBH New York, an advertising firm that has produced an educational Web site called mydebates.org; JetBlue, which provides airline tickets; and the Howard G. Buffett Foundation, a charitable organization created by the son of the billionaire investor Warren E. Buffett.


Yeah, there's no connection whatsoever, and they get nothing. Just good corporate citizens excluding any of those pesky Libertarians, Greens, Constitutionalists, Socialists, BTPers, and Naderites, because God forbid the American people should actually hear different opinions.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Isn't EDS the company started by Ross Perot? If my memory is correct, it seems particularly irritating that they would be financing political discrimination.
Anonymous said…
I don't think they got much for their money; no product placements or anything.

"Well Senator McCain, I was having an ice-cold Budweiser with Joe the Plumber..."

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

Libertarian National Committee Deathwatch Part 1

As the LNC continues to lurch towards collapse, with the latest news of mass layoffs at HQ, I've decided to begin tracking those things leading the national party to irrelevance, even as state and local parties gain power. As news, rumors and rhetoric break out, I shall chronicle them in this ongoing series at Delaware Libertarian. Organizations approaching failure have a number of characteristics. One of the most striking is renunciation of their purpose and effort to reinvent themselves as a "me-too" provider of services in the marketplace. In this, the LNC has been on a collision course with destiny for a while now. Recently, for example, it hired Republican Party web site developer TerraEclipse to redesign the LNC web site . Terra created a web site very similar to those of the clients it brags most about -- far-right Republican conservatives like Tom McClintock and BJ Lawson. A quick look at the web site they built for the LNC is instructive. The tagline on the ...

Soda tax debate reveals fundamental progressive assertions about your lack of individual rights and the "responsiblities" of the State

I thought it would be at least amusing to use the Delawareliberal comments as sub-headings regarding each category of what is wrong with the proposed tax on sodas and juice drinks. But there are so many different little strands of each comment that it would be impossible to pull them all out. So, instead, I'm going to let you read them in more or less the order they appeared, and note the assumptions. pandora: I’m perfectly okay with taxing sodas and juice drinks. Mainly because they’re total crap, and one of the main reasons our country’s children are overweight. They are also dirt cheap. Assumptions here: (1) Because "I" am perfectly okay with a new tax it should be imposed on everybody; (2) it is the government's responsibility to keep children from being obese; (3) the cheapness of the product to be taxed justifies charging people more for it. John Manifold: Soda fattens your kids [and you and your husband], shortens their lives, costs more than water [a...