Endorser’s law needed

In other countries, the delineation of responsibilities of elected officials and their involvement in product promotions is clear-cut.

Sometime in 2012, a member of the House of Representatives braved the political tide and filed a resolution seeking to penalize elected officials who double as brand endorsers.

In the Senate, endorsements are more prevalent because of the perceived national appeal of the members of the upper chamber.

Among the senators is an endorser of a company product on which the Securities and Exchange Commission has issued a cease-and-desist order. Other senators plug hotdogs, razors, painkillers, detergents, a skin whitener, and a wristwatch.

As expected, the House bill went to naught, and the issue was not mentioned again.

Under the proposed bill, officials who accept endorsement contracts would be removed from office and disqualified from holding any other government position or running “for any position in an election.”

They would also suffer a “fine in an amount not less than double the amount of the value of the advertisement.”

The bill’s explanatory note stated, “Whatever reason these public officials may have in doing such advertisements is immaterial.”

“The fact remains that these advertisements give them undue advantage over other prospective candidates. Further, they may face a conflict of interest should they be called upon to investigate the product they are endorsing,” the bill read.

Moreover, the bill said those politicians appearing in advertisements “in any form or medium” would be penalized.

The proposal would also ban other government officials from endorsing or advertising “any product or service in any form or medium.”

The bill cited a provision of the Omnibus Election Code that prohibits candidates from engaging in an “election campaign or partisan political activity except during the campaign period.”

In other countries, the delineation of responsibilities of elected officials and their involvement in product promotions is clear-cut.

In India, for instance, the Department of Consumer Affairs, under the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution, has guidelines including the full disclosure of the advertisement details the public figure is entering into.

The requirement includes “explicit disclosure of sponsorship or collaboration in endorsement.”

The rules in that country state that individuals or groups who have access to an audience and the power to affect purchasing decisions or opinions about a product, service, brand, or experience because of the influencers’ or celebrities’ authority, knowledge, position, or relationship with the public “must disclose to the audience if the endorsement is a result of benefit or incentive from the advertiser.”

Thus, the requirement includes the endorser’s disclosure of monetary compensation or any other form of sponsorship from advertisers.

Moreover, it mandates that the disclosure, including the amount of the endorsement contract, should “be superimposed over the image enough for viewers to notice.”

The endorsers would be penalized for false or misleading claims, and the burden of verifying the authenticity of claims made in the advertisement falls on the public figure.

The US Federal Trade Commission also holds both the advertiser and the endorser responsible for the advertisements.

Legislation in France requires specifying the contract and the brand that endorsers are paid to promote.

In the final analysis, the lack of transparency, such as when politicians claim their fee will go to charity, which is pure bull, should be addressed in a law.

The Philippine Congress, however, is an old boys’ network where they protect their own, thus making a bill on transparency an exercise in futility.

*****

Credit belongs to: www.pna.gov.ph