When watching politicians on TV, consistently peddling the agenda of their biggest bidder and never, unfortunately, that of the electorate, one often wonders: why do these people not wear the logos and decals indicating who their sponsor is, and how much money changes hands. After all it works for sports personalities of all shapes and sizes: why should politicians be exempt. Granted, the quid pro quo is to influence behind the scenes, and as such an overt act of advertising would be largely counterproductive, but campaign financing is without doubt one of the greatest weaknesses of modern society, and among (or at least should be) the main grievances of the Occupy Something crowd. And while a radical proposal like that would certainly never catch on due to concerns of constant exposure of the sell out nature of America's public representatives (who really merely represent corporations), here is an informative clip from Reuters, with observations on "if presidential hopefuls wore their sponsors on their sleeves, what logos would your contender wear?" The result is quite entertaining.