By Nick Nelson
A new report from a ?non-partisan? group, Citizens for Responsible Ethics in Washington, accuses several congressmen, including Utah Rep. Chris Cannon, of accepting campaign contributions from businesses who make money selling pornography.
These businesses include Marriott International and General Motors (which owns DirecTV). These are huge corporations that derive a very small percentage of their revenue from selling pornography, usually through a pay-per-view service, and the Cannon camp has called the accusations ?laughable.?
For me, connecting Marriott or GM to pornography seemed like a stretch until I considered the following scenario.
Suppose a man opens a store dedicated to selling pornographic videos and nothing else. His is a relatively small operation, so he makes only $100,000 a year selling the stuff.
Now consider Marriott. A small fraction of the hotel chain?s annual profits actually stem from the direct sale of pay-per-view pornography. But I?m willing to bet even that fraction ranges in the millions of dollars.
The question now is simple: is the man with the shop or the hotel chain the bigger peddler of pornography?
Though it?s certainly not the company?s chief source of income, I think it?s fair to conclude that Marriott and GM are, among other things, peddlers of pornography.
The next debate is much closer to home but less clear cut. That is the debate over how appropriate it is for a politician ? or a university owned by a religion that condemns pornography ? to accept donations from these businesses.
This is a very touchy subject at BYU, where our business school not only bears the Marriott name but our weekly devotionals also take place in the Marriott Center.
Do we drop the name because of the company?s gains from pornography sales?
I?m reminded of a ward member I knew growing up who drove a semi truck for Budweiser and a bishop I met on my mission who sold hard liquor and tobacco in his meager, one-room store. In both cases, the men looked at their work as an unfortunate necessity. They seemed to see no other way to provide for their family.
I don?t know how much BYU relies on Marriott money to survive, but if it is an option, I think the school should distance itself from the company, if not from the Marriott name in general.
Some argue the Marriott name on BYU?s buildings refers to the significant people who bear that name, not the now publicly traded Marriott International.
But the distinctive Marriott logo on the basketball court in the Marriott Center suggests the ties are corporate as well as familial.
Marriott International money could be used to accomplish a lot of good, but the money is tainted. If cutting ties to the corporation is an economic possibility, I suggest we do it.
And I would advise the Cannon camp to quit laughing and do the same.