Election exceptions

Election season has officially begun, and candidates running for public office are looking for any means – and persons – that may give them an advantage in the public eye. A few have managed to gain more votes just in how they spelled their names when they registered as candidates. Some have used the credibility of their namesake fathers, confusing voters. Still others have simply ridden on the credibility of famous personalities (including athletes) without their knowledge and consent.

As is the norm, there is a prescribed period for campaigning, and a similar time when political advertising is not allowed. Public figures who, by the nature of their profession, appear on television or in radio programs, are prohibited from doing so, since it constitutes some form of unfair advantage over other candidates, and there must be some form of regulation. Therefore entertainers, program hosts, newspaper columnists, opinion writers, interviewers, reporters, and others who make their living appearing in various media are restricted from doing so.

Ironically, it is being in that position that got many politicians where they are in the first place. Recognizability makes many celebrities enticing propositions as candidates, whether or not they have any competence in public office. Their biggest advantage is that people know who they are when they walk down the street. The advent of radio programs on television has added to this pool of potential politicos, since radio commentators and disc jockeys once labored in relative anonymity compared to their TV colleagues. Now that they’ve crossed over into cable and free TV, their faces are now seen on a regular basis, and that makes all the difference in the world.

Historically, the first televised presidential debates in the United States were the watershed moment for media influencing public opinion about candidates. A young, fresh, good-looking John F. Kennedy earned points in public perception when juxtaposed against the older, more serious Richard Nixon. The only difference today is that the debates are bigger events, and campaign teams make more of an effort to spin public perception and even manipulate the debates themselves. Pre- and post-debate hype reaches ridiculous proportions.

Going back to sports, this writer once consulted the Comelec regarding the publicity and promotion surrounding sporting events, such as world title fights like eight-time world champion Manny Pacquiao’s, particularly since he was also a candidate in 2010. Comelec spokesman James Jimenez assured this writer that the merchandising plugs and coverage of the fight itself would not violate any Philippine election laws. The event itself was not political in nature, and was even of national interest.

Given that qualified response, it appears that sporting events by their very nature are exceptions to certain election bans. Basketball games, boxing matches, billiards tournaments, soccer matches and so on are public events that anyone may attend. If you happen to be a political candidate and likewise happen to be in front of a broadcast camera when it is activated, that is not your fault, that’s the reason why we see some veteran politicians climb into the ring with Pacquiao and other Filipino boxers. That’s also why the percentage of candidates and incumbents seated ringside at PBA games rises dramatically around this time every three years. It’s simply the nature of the beast. Candidates go where they can get exposure. That includes game shows and the like.

Professional athletes and national athletes do not work to appear on television per se. They are participating in an athletic event whose organizers negotiated a separate television contract with a broadcast carrier. It is not the player’s fault or responsibility that he appears on television, the same way it is not his choice whether or not he will even get to participate. They are, however very fortunate if they happen to be running in the upcoming election and also appear on TV as a player or coach.

Athletes who compete in international events and are up for election may be considered to have an advantage, but then again, you can’t assault motherhood, so to speak. They bring the country pride, boost national morale, sometimes even stop crime by galvanizing their countrymen as they compete. It is their sheer popularity that gets them in television, radio and the Internet, and makes them attractive candidates. In that way they may seem bulletproof. But that doesn’t mean they are sure to win. 

By nature, athletes have tremendous aspiration value. The public admires and wants to imitate them. That makes them valuable political material. It is convenient that they build their political stock simply by going about their business. It’s an unintended perk of the job.