Around the Water Cooler panelists answered the following: Should President Obama use corporate sponsorships to fund his inaugural celebration rather than exclusively relying on donors?
Richard Place: “I think he should ask everyone who makes over $250,000 to donate for it, that way it won’t upset regular TV.”
Nants Foley: “What’s the difference? A donation is a gift from someone with an agenda. A sponsorship just makes the agenda more visible. Why does the president need a big party? Isn’t it a bit like a second wedding? Tone it down.”
Jim West: “Yes. The corporate sponsor gets his payback when the inaugural is seen on television…I never know when or where the donor gets his payback.”
Mary Zanger: “I find sumptuous celebrations to be out of place in these difficult times. I do not support opulent celebrations paid for by corporations. I want to hear the president swear to uphold the constitution. This swearing in ceremony, paid for by us taxpayers, will receive plenty of visibility and be available for the people to enjoy and celebrate in their own fashion. Involving corporations with their ‘investments’ accumulated with the help of lobbying and subsidies will only indebt the president to corporate control. That is like a ‘pact with the devil.’”
Ruth Erickson: “Traditionally private donors sponsor the celebrations which are attended by an exclusive few at the various events after the president’s inauguration ceremony. By accepting corporate sponsorships, the president could appear to be beholden to them. Let’s stick to tradition.”
