The news from Baltimore is hot: their city council has agreed to allow ads on fire trucks. It was either that or shut down three fire halls, one of which recently dispatched a truck that saved three lives, so the public debate came down to saving lives or saving the pristine red integrity of fire trucks’ appearances. Guess which side got unanimous support from citizens appearing at a public hearing, and then from council?
The dark dance between corporate signage and commercial-free public spaces has been going on for decades, with too many win-wins to dispute the benefits of many pair-ups. Given the state of municipal finances, especially in the U.S., the fire truck breakthrough is likely to be the new normal.
When I was on city council, I was approached by an outdoor advertising firm toying with the idea of building an overpass over McGill Street from Hastings Park to New Brighton Park at no expense to the city, as long as it could beam ads at passing motorists.
The neighbourhood really wanted – still wants – that overpass. It still isn’t there, because the city was struggling to clarify its policy on corporate sponsorship and signage. Public opinion surveys showed that citizens wanted to be sure that some spaces were out of bounds for advertising, and that sponsors didn’t get special treatment. One message came through with uncompromising clarity: no sponsorship on police and fire vehicles “under any circumstances.”
Citizens also said the city should refuse sponsorship from companies “if there are legal, moral or ethical concerns.” I wonder how concerned New Yorkers are about their city’s new deal with scandal-beleaguered Barclays Bank to sponsor a subway stop ($4 million over 20 years).
Baltimore will still have limits. To defend the integrity of the city’s fire services, a committee of firefighters will decide what ads are acceptable on their trucks.
I’m not sure I trust that process. The only time I’ve seen advertising on a fire truck was during municipal election campaigns, when a “privately owned” fire truck turned up at election rallies decked out in the name of candidates who would support firefighter demands for higher wages. No doubt I would have liked it better if my name had been on the truck.
That got me thinking about political candidates, where a large amount of corporate sponsorship money is spent.
In B.C. municipalities, there are no restrictions on this spending, and yet this is the one area where there is the greatest potential compromise to the public good, where “special treatment” of donors is most likely, and where corporate signage is least visible, like anti-matter in the corporate visibility universe.
So I have a simple proposal. Think of those suits that professional skiers and racing car drivers wear, with logos all over them, sized in proportion to the support each company gave them. Someone needs to design a nice looking jump suit for elected officials, with the names of each politician’s biggest donors showing in the biggest type. Why shouldn’t corporate, union and individual donors get the credit they deserve for their contributions to democracy? Why should public recognition for donations in the public interest be limited to stadiums, universities or concession stands?
I am reluctant to suggest this because I do not believe in ridiculing politicians. They receive far more abuse than they deserve. Yet if it applied equally to all politicians at all levels for, say, one day a year, voters could all get the message and politicians could then get back to their red ties and sensible shoes. Call it “Democratic Deficit Removal Day” or “Sponsor Recognition Day.”
Maybe the sponsor suit could be a required uniform for any time a politician makes a decision where a donor is involved and deserves recognition. I think citizens surveyed on this would be strongly in favour, possibly unanimous. •
