west by northwest (by midwest)

commercials. solicitation

The most recent issue of Salt Lake City Weekly features an article about proposed changes to the panhandling ordinance in Salt Lake City.

One section of the Public Discussion Draft of the ordinance struck me as particularly interesting:

(4) False or misleading solicitation. It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly make any false or misleading representation in the course of commercial solicitation. False or misleading representations include, but are not limited to, the following:

a. Stating that the solicitor is from out of town and stranded when such is not true;
b. Stating or suggesting falsely that the solicitor is either a current or former member of the armed services;
c. Wearing or displaying an indication of physical disability when the solicitor does not suffer the disability indicated;
d. Use of any makeup or device to simulate a deformity;
e. Stating that the solicitor is homeless, when he or she is not;
f. Stating that the donation is needed to meet a specific need, when the solicitor already has sufficient funds to meet the need and does not disclose that fact; or
g. Stating that the donation is needed to meet a need that does not exist.

I cannot help but think of all the other commercial solicitations I am exposed to every day: ads that feature heavily Photoshopped models designed to manipulate me into thinking my thighs are too lumpy, eyes too small, hair too thin, skin too wrinkly, or teeth not white enough. Just today, I saw a commercial for deodorant designed to smooth the skin in women’s armpits. Really? Is there an epidemic of scratchy armpits?

Why, I wonder, do panhandlers need to adhere to a higher “truth” standard than product advertisements? Perhaps it is because panhandlers, in essence, ask for donations, and charity should never be manipulated. Fooling unsuspecting pedestrians into paying for an imaginary “bus ticket home” is akin to a 501c3 organization funneling funds into a secret campaign. Or is it? After all, individual panhandlers do not have organizational charters.  They’re just people. If a panhandler lies, is it any different than when a kid saves up her school milk money in secret, so she can blow it all on 45 singles at the record store? (Yeah, I did that.  And yeah, I just gave away my age.) And is it really any different than an advertisement creating a “need” that doesn’t exist, so shoppers will whip out their credit cards? I do not mean to beg the question; I am honestly trying to understand the differences.

The biggest difference, at least so it seems from the political discussion, is where panhandling takes place -  public sidewalks, bus stops, and parks, mostly.  Citizens expect to enjoy public spaces without fear of being harassed.  But then again, other sections of the panhandling ordinance address these issues, with rules to prevent solicitation near outdoor cafe tables, ATM machines, and bus stops. The hope is that bank customers can use the ATM without fear of being robbed, and bus riders can count out their fare change without someone pestering them to spare a quarter. WIth those provisions in place, the “truth in panhandling” provisions make less sense. And let’s be honest: Commercials that lie to us about our bodies and what we “need” are plastered all over public spaces, too: billboards, posters, window signs, and even big-screen televisions in the windows of some of the downtown towers.

Even the sides of the TRAX trains feature a corporate “panhandler”: the Verizon guy telling me how much better off I will be on the 3G network.  Apparently, it is OK for this adverisement to disrupt my enjoyment of the city, but a panhandler cannot approach me at the bus stop.

To be fair, the Verizon guy can’t invade my personal space, touch my hand, ask me repeatedly for change, or follow me around the corner, as some panhandlers have done to to me in the past.  But the ad still changes my experience of the TRAX train; it still attempts to manipulate me into seeing a “need” where there is none.

On principle, I appreciate the “false or misleading solicitation” section of the ordinance. I do not think panhandlers should pretend to have a physical disability, or to be homeless, or a war veteran, in part because such false pretenses manipulate people into donating money.  More importantly, these tactics do an injustice to the people they are pretending to be - contributing to stereotypes and perhaps taking potential donations away from those causes.

But the more I think about it, the more questions I have, especially as I think back to similar debates in Portland, Oregon. I will write about this more in the future.