Tiger Woods has his Swoosh. The San Francisco Giants have AT&T Park. The bowl games have their sponsors. Even on deck circles have sponsors for radio and television baseball broadcasts.

So why not extend those sponsorships beyond sports ... say, to the political arena.

What would be wrong with having politicians wear sponsorship logos? After all, there is something to be said about full disclosure when it comes to campaign contributions. Just put everything up front and center so everyone knows where the contributions are coming from.

Case in point is the decision from the Supreme Court this past Thursday in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, No. 08-205. The decision basically removes the government's right to restrict the amount of funds corporations are allowed to spend delivering election campaign messages. It also overturns bans on broadcasting electioneering communications in weeks leading up to an election (the case resulted in the ban on the distribution of “Hillary: The Movie”).

The ruling is based on corporations having equal rights to private citizens. About such restrictions, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority: “These prohibitions are classic examples of censorship ... The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves.”

In his dissenting opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens said: “The court's ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions around the nation.”

So, here are some questions to ponder. Is this a victory for free speech? Is it a blank check for corporate giants to buy elections? Do you really believe that those laws were adhered to without any manipulating of the system? Oh, and do you think the flood of campaign advertising is only going to get way worse?

It all fits in with lawmakers and full disclosure. Sure, political contributions are a matter of public record, and available to those who take the time to do the digging. Just take the next step and require them to wear those Nike Swoosh logos on their polyester blue and gold jackets, just like Tiger and other athletes do. Corporations have never been shy about their support of athletes, so why should politics be any different?

No matter what the long term effects of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, there is one certainty. Ultimately, it's the responsibility of us as citizens to keep our eye on the ball.