Today the Supreme Court ruled that corporations, unions and other groups can spend unlimited funds for or against political candidates or causes. Many in my community are lamenting this, saying that now there will be a deluge of money purchasing the political process. I see this happening, too, but I also see many other, perhaps unintended consequences.
1) There has to be information transparency about these political efforts. I can see the populace knowing that (as an example) Home Depot is backing this candidate or Lowe's is donating to a certain cause. As a side effect of that, I can see tremendous boycotts and actions from this. There are many people currently who feel certain (perhaps unjustified) feelings of faith about certain brands or companies. Does Target really want to become a part of the political process? Based on Thomas Moynihan and Domino's or John Mackey and Whole Foods, do companies really want to become a part of the political process? If so they are going to have to take on the negative effects of the political process, too. They will be accountable for their actions. Particularly mass merchandise companies that HAVE to be many things to all people may not want to limit their potential market through a boycott. Imagine if they support a politician who, in turn, pisses off the Latino community.
2) I can see this leading to a radical new engagement of the populace. The capitalist system has spent the past 50-60 years convincing us that our value to our country and society is through consumption. Yes, I realize this is a bit simplistic, but, if you talk to advertisers or read much about the capitalist system of the past half century, you'll see this frequently mentioned. Based on this idea, how is the populace going to react when all of "their" companies, all of "their" brands are now supporting political candidates or causes? Is Nike or Adidias really going to get involved in the messiness of the political fray? Many companies in California have, but not necessarily companies that are involved in mass marketing. PG&E is involved in the political process all the time. Many astroturf groups are funded directly by companies.
3) How is this going to affect employees? If a given company is directly and consistently funding Democrats or Republicans or takes a specific position on a divisive matter of the day, how would this affect the current employees? future employees? Are you going to get companies that self-select by their political perspectives? Frequently that happens now but more based on the industry that a company is in. You'll see many more conservatives in the natural extraction industries that you would in the entertainment business. Are you going to have people self-select as they frequently do geographically (to live near "like-minded" people) and work with "like-minded" people? This definitely defeats the current HR thinking of larger companies like "big tents" that need to include many different viewpoints in order to meet the needs of a large potential marketplace.
4) I guess I'd also raise the point that the unseemly, perhaps undignified, nature of politics, particularly if the transparency and visibility of the actions of these corporations is made visible, may drag down any entity that chooses to participate. Coca-Cola, Nestle, Coors, and many other companies have seen the wrath of consumers based on their actions. If consumers now believe that they have the right to protest any action of these companies anywhere, it'll definitely change the relationship. In some ways I wonder if you equate the corporation and the populace in political speech, it may equate the corporation and the people in other ways, too. I can only hope.
Finally, I'll make a comment about the vehicles of speech themselves, frequently ads. Right now, the ad market is so depressed. Advertisers frequently cannot get consumers to view their ads. Where are political advertisers or speech vehicles going to go where they are actually seen? TV? Doubtful. With Tivo and other ways, people are watching fewer commercials with fewer commercials penetrating the psyche. During the 2008 political campaign, in many markets, Obama bought up nearly ALL the advertising time he could. It was total saturation advertising. He literally could have spent more but couldn't constructively find the advertising time. If the political advertising gets even more saturated, there is very little room before it just doesn't penetrate. There are dozens of TV channels. Are you sure that message is actually getting through to anybody? Where do people go? Google ads? I am very dubious as to the effectiveness of Google ads. I ignore them at a very high rate. I can't remember the last time I actually even looked at or noticed one, nevermind respond or click on one.
That's it for now.
