Sponsored Politics?

I think it is officially safe to say that the advertising business has its hand in many cookie jars; politics being one of them. For the first time in history I believe that we, as an nation, had an opportunity to see magnified advertising in politics. What I am implying is that this previous election was a battle over who's message was received the most in any way imaginable, via television, radio, social networking engines, YouTube, and print. Advertising plays a substantial role in everyone of those communication categories above. Quintessentially, politics is merely a popularity contest in one way or another, if one candidate promotes his or her name and message more frequently than the other candidate more likely than not that person will be victorious due to familiarity. Unfair to some because advertising is not free, subsequently leading to the theory that whoever has the most money will win. This is the exact reason why a politician's campaign committee screens the advertising agencies they are interested in prior to them officially hiring them.

Some politicians have learned the hard way when they take their "advertising elbow room" for granted. The campaign abruptly learns that no matter how much they are seen by the public their message is unattractive to their target votes concluding in a probable loss. When a politician finds an exceptional ad agency it is pivotal because that agency will most likely send out the right messages to make the campaign look good to their targets.

Concluding, I personally believe that a political campaign is only as good as their advertising. Public relation committees predicate their lively-hood in their business off of how well they can promote their candidate and how the candidates message is portrayed to the masses subsequently putting the successes and failures on their shoulders.