The Branding of Laws: The public has long been aware that advertisers attempt to connect the hearts and minds of customers with evocative brand names and catchy slogans. Ad agencies have earned well-deserved reputations, and unabashedly give themselves awards for the most creative advertisements cleverly designed to overcome the conditioned scepticism of the public.

The advertisee knows he's being sold something. Generally, he's cognisant of the fact that a product might or might not really be, "the best a man can get." Today, most informed consumers have some idea how advertising, naming and branding work to get them to buy or do something they just might not, without some persuasion.

But, do most people appreciate the extent to which the "laws of branding" understood by advertising agencies are regularly applied to legislation to sell any old "Bill of Goods" to the voting representatives and, ultimately, to the unsuspecting public? Our elected representatives are passing laws in our best interests, right? They're not trying to sell us anything, are they? Well, actually they are. But first, the draft legislation has to be sold to the legislators themselves. Legislation is packaged for passage; branded to sell to the elected representatives and in the end, to we the people.

Sometimes, the names of laws contain evocative words to ensure widespread political acceptance; like "partial-birth abortion" in the case of the recently enacted Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003.

Increasingly, the short names of legislation are acronyms that are contrived to make memorable words that give the law an appropriate marketing spin; like CAN SPAM. Officially, this Act may be cited as the "Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act of 2003" or the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 — whichever works for you.

In a post 911 world, the Congress bought into new laws that abrogated long-established civil liberties under the guise of increasing national and personal security. That legislative sales job was facilitated by the most egregious naming and branding exercise in history. This Act may be cited as the "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act" or the USA Patriot Act. All in favor of the USA Patriot Act? In less than seven weeks after September 11, 2001, the Congress and the people who elected them patriotically bought into a comprehensive package of policies off the shelf, and laws hastily drafted, that were effectively rebranded, named and enacted as the USA Patriot Act.

Catchy names for legislation are not entirely new and there are countless examples that might be cited here. Perhaps the most entertaining name from the more distant past is RICO. In 1970, the U.S. government enacted federal statutes referred to as the "Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations" laws to combat the influence of organized crime in legitimate businesses. It remains undetermined whether there is any truth to the urban legend that the title is taken from Edward G. Robinson's character, Cesare Enrico 'Rico' Bandello, in Little Caesar, the original gangster movie. The dying utterance of Robinson's character is a well-known cinematic catch phrase: "Mother of mercy, is this the end of Rico?"

Just the beginning, it seems. The president's case for expanded powers in Patriot II are reported as favorably as possible by FOX News:

"You need to have every tool at your disposal to be able to do your job on behalf of the American people," Bush told the audience of FBI trainees and agents. "The House and the Senate have a responsibility to act quickly on these matters; untie the hands of our law enforcement officials so they can fight and win the war against terror."

...

Proponents say new rules in Patriot II, a term at which advocates of increased powers cringe, would not assault personal freedom and are already available to prosecutors in other criminal cases.

"It's not revolutionary. It simply gives law enforcement the same tools against terrorists that are used [with success] against the mafia," said Eli Lehrer, a homeland security expert for a Fortune 500 company, who argued that administrative subpoenas are subject to oversight by a counterintelligence court or other special court, but not a grand jury.

Amid allegations of abuse of powers under the USA Patriot Act, nobody expects that new legislation called Patriot II would get an easy pass through Congress; so a draft has been named the "Vital Interdiction of Criminal Terrorist Organizations Act" or Victory Act. All in favor of Victory?