A U.S. House attempt to ban armed forces sponsorships of professional sports "has touched a nerve within NASCAR,” according to Daniel Malloy of the ATLANTA JOURNAL-CONSTITUTION. The provision is “included in a defense spending bill set to hit the House floor in the coming weeks.” NASCAR VP/Public Affairs & Multicultural Development Marcus Jadotte said that the series is “lobbying against the ban.” Jadotte: “The military and government agencies should have the freedom to make decisions based on what works best for them.” However, the military has “struggled to quantify the effect of the sponsorships.” Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.), the bill's co-author, and Rep. Betty McCollum (D-Minn.) “pounced when Maj. Brian Creech of the National Guard told USA Today that 24,800 people contacted the Guard about joining as a result” of the Guard’s sponsorship of NASCAR driver Dale Earnhardt Jr. National Guard Public Affairs Specialist Rick Breitenfeldt in an e-mail said the figures caused “quite a little debate” within the Guard. He added Creech “most likely did not have all the information necessary to make those claims.” Kingston and Bill Harper, McCollum’s chief of staff, said that, “Opposition to the sponsorship ban has been coming from NASCAR, not the Pentagon.”
TRADING PAINT: Malloy wrote the issue is “likely to turn into a racing-themed House floor fight.” McCollum’s past efforts to ban motorsports sponsorships “were defeated by big margins in floor votes, but this time Kingston’s backing got the ban into the bill during the committee process.” Rep. Bill Young (R-Fla.), a “foe of the sponsorship restriction,” said that he “let the amendment go through because he did not want to make colleagues choose between two appropriations subcommittee chairmen -- Kingston runs the agriculture subcommittee, while Young controls defense spending.” Young said that he “expects the sponsorship ban will be removed by the time the law is passed.” Kingston: “It’s important for Republicans to weigh in and keep the same yardstick that we would use on a welfare program or something that we might be a little more skeptical of just to begin with” (ATLANTA JOURNAL-CONSTITUTION, 6/20).
