Congress Rushes to Secure Corporate Branding

Representatives embrace NASCAR sponsorship model; “All offers considered if paying in cash,” promise Senators

Senator David Vitter (R.-Hrny.) displays a few of his corporate sponsors.

WA$HINGTON – In the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision to allow corporations to freely contribute to political candidates, members of both parties have rushed to not only secure corporate donors, but to allow those donors to sponsor Congressmen and brand their reps accordingly.

“For far too long, our suit coats and blazers have been underutilized, displaying vast swaths of open fabric that could be used for the purposes of raising vital campaign funds,” said Senator James Inhofe (R.-Oil), wearing the green and white British Petroleum sports coat, which also included arm patches from Country Time Lemonade and the National Rifle Association. “Why should we let perfectly good campaign financing lie fallow? That’s why I support the message of ‘Donate, baby, donate.’”

Other Republicans echoed Senator Inhofe’s position. Louisiana’s David Vitter opined, “The Supreme Court has ruled that corporations have the same freedoms as people. Well, people give money to other people in exchange for things, like services. So why should a large, well-endowed organization not be allowed to give me money in exchange for servicing them? That flies in the face of what our Founding Fathers stood for.”

Vitter has been particularly aggressive in soliciting corporate funds, securing a particularly large lump sum from Depend, the adult underwear maker. However, some political watchdog groups fear such unblocked donations will soil the political landscape.

Professor Robert Vious, a political scientist at Johns Hopkins University, says, “Previously, the laws against corporate donations protected the democratic process from being tainted by the uncontrollable urges of corporate influence. Now, however, the Supreme Court ruling allows people like Senator Vitter to be openly in the pocket of Big Diaper.

“I don’t see how that won’t leave a large stain on our elections.”

Democrats have generally spoken out against the Supreme Court’s decision. Senator John Kerry, (D.-Zzz.) has proposed a constitutional amendment against corporate speech. “Make no mistake, we will, in no uncertain terms, take this development under an uncompromising review process that will thoroughly examine, to the best of our ability, the possibility that we could, given the opportunity, establish the process for potentially proposing an amendment which, if ratified by the requisite number of states, would prevent this type of corporate influence, assuming said amendment did not suffer from being amended, under the wilting heat of Republican opposition and Glenn Beck’s powerful tears, into a futile gesture that, upon its final tally, accomplishes very little.

“That I promise you!”

Even as Democrats generally opposed the sponsorship, sources say they are entering talks with their own sponsors should their efforts fail. “It just makes good business sense to cover your bases,” said the source, who claimed that Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy had held a secret sponsorship meeting with ice cream makers Beny & Jerry to allow them to advertise their new flavors, “Democratic Waffle Cone” and “Congressional Budget Crunch.”

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, (D.-Keno), wearing a jacket made of green felt, cautioned against overreacting against such corporate spending. “The odds are that this won’t change the game very much,” Reid said. “We will certainly encourage corporations to donate responsibly and to set limits on their spending, which I’m certain will prevent any problems from arising.

“In the meantime, I encourage Americans to sit back, relax, and not worry about this. In fact, what better place to relax and forget your troubles than beautiful Las Vegas?”