Endorsing stupidity

Artists, chefs, and writers have something in common. They don’t like it when they have to throw out or rip up a half finished work because something came up. We also don’t like people telling us how to do our work.

A few minutes ago, I was half way done with my column when I learned about the latest Comelec pronouncement “suggesting” that actors, actresses, artists even columnists should take a leave of absence from work while endorsing a candidate.

The news was repeated through the day but very little effort was made to explain and justify what for me sounded like a stupid idea. The only reason mentioned was in order to have a level playing field for candidates who did not have celebrity endorsers.

Following on that notion, I guess the problem is that some candidates don’t have the support of celebrities or public figures. Some candidates can’t afford to buy their own celebrity endorsers, and some celebrities or opinion leaders do use their platform or every opportunity to promote their interest, their candidates or their opinion.

Does all this give the Comelec the right to violate several Constitutional rights of “endorsers” or supporters?

First of all, not all endorsers are PAID. Just like in America, some celebrities truly believe in a candidate, is a friend of a candidate or even a relative of a candidate. Endorsements and endorsers are not always there for transactional relationships.

Oprah Winfrey went out of her way to support Barack Obama. Many actors and actresses even participate in fund raising dinners and road trips because they sincerely support a candidate. That is their right and their prerogative. Regardless of whom they support, no one not even the Comelec has the right to violate political beliefs, the right to earn a living, and the right to freedom of expression.

How would the Commissioners feel if columnists start suggesting that Comelec officials should only receive full pay during the period of elections and not all 12 months of the year? What would their reaction be to an attrition law based on how fast they decided election cases? No 13th month pay for every year a case is not decided upon?

Let us not kid ourselves in thinking that all candidates are or can be equal. Some simply don’t inspire support. In fact some are downright offensive or can’t be trusted. So not all candidates are created equal and not all candidates will get unsolicited or unpaid endorsers.

Assuming that a number of endorsers are actually paid professionals, they do so based on a transaction and a contract. We all have a right to profit or earn a living. They put their face, their word and their credibility on a candidate who will either deliver or cause endorsers to regret being associated with a ranting lunatic. By the way, not all candidates keep their word or pay the fee; some endorsers have been shortchanged by some prominent members of Congress.

Not all candidates can get endorsers because they are either too cheap, have a bad reputation for not paying the talent fee or simply because they are not really candidates. Some join the race to collect funds they won’t spend or they join just to help ruin someone else’s chances of winning.

In the current Presidential race, all of the above applies to at least one candidate.

Telling endorsers to simply go on leave from work because their mere public presence or visibility translates to continuing points for their candidates reflects an attitude that is dictatorial and utterly lazy. The presumption of guilt is made even before any offense has been committed.

If an “endorser” unfairly uses a program, a billboard, or any advertising to give undue advantage to a candidate by wearing an icon such as the yellow ribbon or the Check symbol, or flashing the Laban or Check finger symbolism in TV or video that is outside the “campaign parameters” then censure them as having abused Comelec rules.

If you want to be picky about it, you can even clock “artista interviews” that focus on a candidate and penalize the candidate’s “media time”. That would be doable and more realistic since all candidates are watching and looking for an excuse to penalize their opponents.

At the very least, endorsers and candidates will begin to appreciate their role as well as the rules. Don’t bark on the endorsers or the celebrities because it will always be an unpopular move.

As far as columnists go, the suggestion of the Comelec is equivalent to treading dangerous grounds. The announcement sounded more like interference and imposition.

In the spirit of fairness, we must all give equal time if not equal space. To achieve that, the Comelec should sit down with publishers and if possible with columnists to develop practical guidelines to address the issue of giving unfair advantage to any one candidate.

I fully agree that columnists have a responsibility to all and not just one. It is both our privilege and as well as our responsibility to be fair and balanced. Along side that double edged sword, we must also cut, slice and if necessary dice whoever and whatever is contrary to truth and public good. It goes without saying that we must be first among equals to obey those rules.

Without doubt the officials of the Comelec are trying to do what is best and what is right. To their credit they have introduced a number of things that are a breakthrough in the history of Philippine elections.

Perhaps what they should try to do at times is get professional help and not try to do things on their own.