News Lobbying for the 2016 Olympics: What Does It Mean for Chicago?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jobyts
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    2016 Mean
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the Obamas' lobbying efforts to bring the 2016 Summer Olympics to Chicago, questioning whether this involves bribery or political favors. Lobbying is described as a crucial part of the lengthy application process, where government support is essential for a successful bid. Concerns about past bribery scandals in Olympic history are mentioned, but Chicago is noted for its political integrity. The logistical challenges of hosting the Olympics in densely populated areas are acknowledged, alongside the city's infrastructure advantages. Ultimately, the conversation reflects skepticism about Chicago's bid in light of Rio's compelling case as a host city.
jobyts
Messages
226
Reaction score
60
When they say the Obamas are lobbying to bring the 2016 summer olympics to Chicago, what are they actually doing? Are they bribing, or return some political favor back?. What exactly is lobbying?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
At this point just saying "I'm for it" is enough.
There is a long complex application process to check that the host city can build the infrastructure and organize the event - but the IOC also like to know the nation's government is behind a bid - so that when the city falls behind or runs out of money (inevitably) they will step in and bail them out.

It's unlikely to go to a city where their nation's government says - it's upto them, don't expect any help from us!

There were bribery scandals surrounding the Salt Lake City and Atlanta games - but obviously this wouldn't occur in a city with such a long history of political probity as Chicago
 
mgb_phys said:
There were bribery scandals surrounding the Salt Lake City and Atlanta games - but obviously this wouldn't occur in a city with such a long history of political probity as Chicago

lol, vote early, and vote often!


also, the Olympics, as lofty as its goals are, is still a business. a business that protects its trademarks rather zealously. in the end, it is all about the money.
 
Proton Soup said:
lol, vote early, and vote often!


also, the Olympics, as lofty as its goals are, is still a business. a business that protects its trademarks rather zealously. in the end, it is all about the money.

True, they are famous for their rigorous defense of the word "Olympic." So much so that many years ago, when there was a movement in the Seattle area to bring the Olympics here, one potential problem was recognized. We have a mountain range nearby called the Olympics. And everywhere you look...everywhere!...you'll see businesses with that name. Olympic Laundry, Olympic Tax Service, Olympic Cafe, Olympic Auto Repair...you get the idea.

If Seattle were ever to get the Olympic Games, what would the committee do about all these already-named businesses?
 
jobyts said:
When they say the Obamas are lobbying to bring the 2016 summer olympics to Chicago, what are they actually doing? Are they bribing, or return some political favor back?. What exactly is lobbying?

It takes years of planning to organize an Olympics. To complicate matters, Chicago's plan is to locate the venues along the lake front in some of the cities most densely populated areas.

With 2 airports, a major highway system, and thousands of hotel rooms, the city is well equipped to handle the event - but logistics will be interesting.

President Obama lives in Chicago and has deep ties to the city leaders. He, along with Oprah, are logical spokespersons to help sell the cities bid. Chicago is fortunate that President Obama is willing to make such a dedicated commitment.
 
Ok, Chicago is out. Rio's argument is more compelling and reasonable. Olympics has never been to South America.
 
jobyts said:
Olympics has never been to South America.
Would they have to run around the track in the other direction?

I would have though Brazil had a good chance, emerging BRIC nation, lots of young sports-mad advertising viewers and I wouldn't have thought the US TV networks were offering enough money these days to have much influence
 

Similar threads

Back
Top