At Level 5, some allege, the racing was funded by pay day loans: http://www.motorsport.com/tusc/news/scott-tucker-go-big-then-go-home-456342/
Is it any different than the import/export outfits that funded IMSA in the '80s? And do you care where the dollars come from as long as there are cars on the track?
Discuss.
No I do not care.
I would not care if it was just payday loans. Payday loans are what they are.
What Tucker is accused of is a completely different level to that. The Indian nation tie-in is what bugs me. It just screams like I'm trying to hide something and using the Indian immunity as a shield.
Your question is much too broad.
Cigarettes, alcohol, cocaine, prostitutes, condoms, Kotex, explosives, military grade weaponry, abortion services, transgender surgical services, colonoscopies, crime scene cleanup, dog neutering, political advertising, human trafficking, diapers, pedobear, KKK enrollment ads...
Yeah, there are probably a few products and services I'd rather not see sponsor race cars.
bmw88rider wrote: What Tucker is accused of is a completely different level to that. The Indian nation tie-in is what bugs me. It just screams like I'm trying to hide something and using the Indian immunity as a shield.
Allegedly the reason for the Native American tie-in is to use the immunity to make payday loans in states where payday loans are illegal. A whole bunch of companies got shut down for that or very quickly shut down once they figured out that they were in trouble because the tie in didn't quite do what they thought it would, although I don't know if Tucker was involved with any of them.
My moral compass may be slightly bent - I used to work for investment banks, after all - but I actually do care if someone's racing is being funded by someone who has a thriving jetski rental business...
I've dealt professionally with one of the larger payday loan outfits and there's apparently a lot of money in that business, although I wasn't able to shake very much out of them in the couple deals that we've done. Personally, I have never used their services, however, I have an in-law that apparently makes them a lot of money, but I've never been able to figure out what the big deal is. They're a terrible deal and very expensive and quite frankly most of their customers are there because they don't make good decisions in life. But then I could say the same about plenty of other businesses out there as well as most politicos. If what they're doing is illegal, then I kind of have a problem with that in general. If I had a fundamental ethical or moral disagreement with what they did to get their money, regardless of legality, I like to think I wouldn't accept their sponsorship, but I don't think I would really get all bent out of shape about it if they were paying someone else's way.
EDIT: It looks like the FTC won a judgement against AMG for various and sundry deceptive business practices involving undisclosed fees and whatnot. So I think that throws them solidly in the "illegal" category.
No. One has nothing to do with the other.
would i care who sponsors my car? yes. other cars? no.
As a matter of principle, supporting whatever the money goes to is supporting where the money comes from. If I couldn't defend supporting where that money comes from to my little girl, then I wouldn't support the organization funded by it. Getting a few cars onto a race track is simply not that important.
They could be sponsored by lucky strikes and al qaida for all i care.
To fans... sponsorship is just colors to tell one car from another but sssshhhh, don't let the rubes paying for race cars know that.
As a driver/team, no one could afford it otherwise. Not just the car - but orgs need funds to pay for a series. We need those aborted native indian fetus cased hot dog loans more than they need us.
I wouldn't woo a sponsor I couldn't explain to my kids and friends... like Sex Slave Abductions LTD isn't something I'd look to as a partner but... but... as a customer I might secretly root for the driver 
kanaric wrote: They could be sponsored by lucky strikes and al qaida for all i care.
An Al Qaida car would be awesome. It would be like WWF from the 80s with the Iron Sheik. Then, the USMC would need to put up a car to "fight" them... BTCC rules would make for plenty of action. E36 M3 talk and people hitting each other with chairs all up and down the pit lane. Every now and again an announcer has to rip off their shirt, flex a couple times... and jump into a car to do battle.
NASCAR is already half-way there... they should embrace the silly.
Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:kanaric wrote: They could be sponsored by lucky strikes and al qaida for all i care.An Al Qaida car would be awesome. It would be like WWF from the 80s with the Iron Sheik. Then, the USMC would need to put up a car to "fight" them... BTCC rules would make for plenty of action. E36 M3 talk and people hitting each other with chairs all up and down the pit lane. Every now and again an announcer has to rip off their shirt, flex a couple times... and jump into a car to do battle. NASCAR is already half-way there... they should embrace the silly.
They would need a Nikolai Volkoff car too
Edit: Classic WWF bad guys would be an awesome theme for a multi car crapcan racing team, or $20xx challenge team.
I would probably care who pays for MY racing, but I don't particularly care who pays for someone else.
At one of the local oval tracks, there is a car sponsored by a gentlemens club, complete with dancer on a pole silhouette on the rear quarter panel.
Yes I care. I'll pretty much second what Driven5 said. I would be especially picky about who sponsors my cars.
And a "payday loan" place is among the worst sponsors you could get. I was already getting a bit uncomfortable about the "gentleman's club" sponsors - more over bringing sleazy "adult" themes into racing than anything else. A playboy bunny logo is one thing, but I've seen the same "dancer on a pole" silhouette sponsorship and that's...another.
Just being sponsored is one thing, although it still says something about a racer's morality or lack of it. And I'd have a hard time cheering for a racer who was sponsored by something sleazy. And if I did have some sort of racing effort worth sponsoring, yes, I'd turn down a sponsor I was uncomfortable with.
But for a villain angle, I've got to wonder why Kyle Bush is racing in a car painted up like a packet of M&Ms; having him sponsored by a payday loan company being investigated by the Feds would seem appropriate. Or have him sponsored by a feminine hygiene product company so they can put the logo of an actual line of douche bags on his car.
But Mr. Tucker seems to have taken this to the next level by being personally involved with the shady dealings, not merely being sponsored. That's a lot worse.
In reply to MadScientistMatt:
^ This.
Being sponsored by an illegally structured payday loan company is totally different from RUNNING that illegally structured payday loan company to fund your racing ventures.
He sounds like a nice guy and a hell of an entrepreneur, but the law is the law. This is why they say not to mix business and pleasure, I suppose...
Not really, at least to a reasonable point. But it has in the past affected who I root for.
I'm yet to have a perspective sponsor contact me out of the blue (whether for my personal car or for a sanctioning body that I represent) with that being said the driver either likely has a connection/contact who is a high up within the business or targeted them as a "fit" interest and exposure wise with the appropriate marketing budget to assist them. Judge driver and sponsor as you will...
BoxheadTim wrote:bmw88rider wrote: What Tucker is accused of is a completely different level to that. The Indian nation tie-in is what bugs me. It just screams like I'm trying to hide something and using the Indian immunity as a shield.Allegedly the reason for the Native American tie-in is to use the immunity to make payday loans in states where payday loans are illegal. A whole bunch of companies got shut down for that or very quickly shut down once they figured out that they were in trouble because the tie in didn't quite do what they thought it would, although I don't know if Tucker was involved with any of them.
I used to work for an ad agency that was actually owned by a payday loan company, and what you're saying is more or less correct. Each state sets (or doesn't) limits on the amount of interest you can charge for a loan in that state. So to offer loans in states with interest limits below the lender's rate, lenders essentially rent an Indian tribe--the theory being that since laws regarding tribe reservation sovereignty are still a little...weird. So you make a loan through a "bank" located on reservation land in order to target specific states that would normally be off limits to you.
In somewhat related news, the owner, COO, and corporate counsel of my former employer are currently indicted in NY for violating state lending laws (not for tribe-related loans, just usury in general).
Isnt this the plot from early on in Days of Thunder?
Or Talladega Nights 
Hell, moonshining purportedly started that thing called NASCAR. NASCAR held beach races. Beach races got Daytona built. Daytona brought a 24 hour race.
What's not to like about lucrative buisnesses.
Moonshining was illegal but morally, at least far better than payday loans IMO.
You'll need to log in to post.
