One day you’re a father of four pitching life insurance to other parents, the next day you’re a youthful-sounding dude pushing fast food on teenagers.

Or, you’re a pimply-faced teenage girl extolling the virtues of acne medication, then you’re a tall, statuesque woman with long-flowing hair voicing a diet soft drink commercial.

In the recording booth, a voice-over actor can be anyone.

But can they be political?

Celebrity voice-over talent D.C. Douglas learned the hard way that he couldn’t. As reported this past April, on cable news and online sites from “The Week” to “The Huffington Post,” Douglas (aka actor Lance Baxter) was fired from a high-profile voice-over gig with Maryland-based auto insurance company Geico after he left a private message on the voice-mail of the Tea-Party group Freedom Woharlanrks. In the message, Douglas, a staunch liberal, used a derogatory name for mentally-handicapped individuals to characterize the conservative group’s membership base. He also left his name and cell phone number expecting a return phone call. Instead, Freedom Works published Douglas’ message in its entirety along with his contact information, and encouraged their members to call Geico and voice their disapproval. They did. And Douglas was released from his contract. His voice will no longer try to convince listeners that “15 minutes or more could save you 15 percent.” (Geico’s reasoning behind the firing was that they needed to protect their brand from controversy.)

Douglas got a lot of attention (over 300,000 hits) for a video spoof about the lessons he learned. And he was fired due to comments he made, and not for lending his voice to a political candidate or campaign. But it begs the question: In an increasingly polarized country, could it be possible for a voice-over actor to lose a commercial account by voicing a politicians commercials?

“It’s possible, and more and more likely in these heated political times,” says Norm Woodel, a Chicago-based voice-over talent who’s been “selling” his voice since 1968 to pitch everything from automobiles to beer, cable television spots to clean energy ads. “It’s awful to retaliate against someone for voicing their private views. We’re missing what this country is all about.”

If Woodel, a self-confessed “diehard democrat” who’s been voicing political ads since the beginning of his career, sounds slightly perturbed and sensitive to the issue, it’s understandable. During the 2008 primaries, he voiced Hillary Clinton’s infamous, “It’s 3 a.m.” campaign spots—a commercial that made Time Magazine’s Top 10 campaign ads of all time, and that has since been parodied to death on YouTube. But apart from getting flak from friends, Woodel claims to have lost an industrial gig after a potential client recognized his voice from the ubiquitous Clinton spot. Not that it hurt his career in the long-run. Woodel continues to work and is proud of the fact that he does so while remaining true to his personal beliefs.

“I’d voice Republican spots if the party would give up its morality crusade. Smaller government, less taxes [are] good ideas, separate and un-equal laws for minorities and the non-religious, not so much. The truth is both parties in their extremes can be too much for me personally. Still, I’m proud to have voiced advocacy ads that perhaps helped pass healthcare for everyone.”

For Harlan Hogan, a colleague of Woodel’s who’s also racked up impressive credentials in both the commercial and political voice-over fields, political voice-over work is just a job.

“I understand how it can be more of a personal expression, but for me it’s just a gig,” he says bluntly. “My job is to present the facts, get out the information and help that person become elected. That does not mean I personally have to vote for them,” adds Hogan, who has lent his voice to the likes of Hillary Clinton, Mitt Romney and John McCain. “For several years I used to be the voice of the lamb council; I can’t eat lamb and abhor the stuff. I’m perfectly fine doing their commercials, however.

“This is not art and this is not altruism. It’s commerce,” says Hogan, “I’m in the advertising business and I happen to be talking about candidates now, but in a few hours I may be talking about mufflers.”

If Hogan and Woodel represent opposite ends of the spectrum when it comes to actors and their personal beliefs and political voice-over jobs, they also represent the reality of who’s getting these lucrative gigs: the experienced performer who’s mastered the art of the commercial copy.

“In this business there are exceptions to every rule, but the more experienced performer will understand what the producers are looking for, what the writer is trying to communicate and then successfully deliver that message,” says Linda Jack of Grossman Jack Talent in Chicago. She’s been a casting agent for over 30 years, and remains proud to have provided some of the voice-over talent for then Senator Barack Obama’s successful 2008 bid for president, something she describes as “an enormous career high.”

Voice-over agent of almost 20 years Joan Sparks, of Stewart Talent in Chicago, concurs. “The political arena is not for the inexperienced voice-over person. It’s for the talent that can gage how long a script will be just by looking at the ad, shave off seconds to make the copy flow faster and then pace it under 30 seconds in one or two takes. Those [political voice-over] sessions can be pretty brutal.”

Experience, however, doesn’t necessarily translate into old or young. Although commercial voice-over work today tends to go for the younger-sounding and more casual voice, and can take advantage of the larger number of younger individuals working in the commercial field, according to agents the most popular voices for the political arena tend to be those voices that can instill trust, confidence, reassurance, credibility, reliability and dependability—usually the same vocal considerations for institutions like banks, hospitals and financial investment firms. Ultimately, it’s all about the performer and what quality of vocal production they are capable of.

“I have a guy in his 40s who still only books in his 20s because that’s where his voice is,” says Sparks. “And I have a gentleman that’s 35 but whose voice is much more mature.”

Out of a list of 175 voice-over actors, Sparks says maybe 10 to 15 of those can do political.

Along with experience and that rare “voice of God” authoritative quality that few performers naturally possess, another factor that seems to shrink the pool of political voice-over actors is the fact that political consultants, once a positive working rapport with the talent has been established, tend to like to use the same performer over and over.

“Just as one voice may become identified with a product or campaign as long as the client is happy with that voice, the same goes for political campaigns. In the case of Obama there were multiple voices, but they were consistently the same voices,” explains Jack.

Another reason offered by Sparks is that the political consultants typically need an amazingly quick turnaround on their product.

“The Fed Ex guy and I used to be buddies. He’d come by here every morning and I was amazed that I could record my voices today [via reel, DAT or CD] and it could be on the air tomorrow. Tomorrow! Forget it. Now those recordings I make go on the air instantly.”

Technological infrastructure and digital network service has made it possible for voice-over talent to transmit broadcast-quality recordings from their home studios, something not all voice-over talent can afford. It’s expensive, and another reason why typically only experienced voice-over talent—who have had enough political work to justify the expense and monthly service fees of a home studio—can provide the quick turnaround needed by campaigns and political consultants.

“We have an obligation to our clients to defend their honors,” says Scott Schweitzer, who’s been casting and producing political spots for over 10 years with the Ohio and Texas-based consultancy firm The Strategy Group for Media. “These are lives on the line. If an opponent’s spot comes out on a Friday, you can’t wait until Monday, or even the next day. Within an hour or even a half hour it is necessary [to produce a new spot]. Turnaround time is imperative.”

Recognized as one of the top five GOP firms in America, The Strategy Group has hired voice-over talent from all across the country to voice spots for public officials around the country, from congressmen to attorneys general, governors to judges. (You might think of The Strategy Group as the Republican version of the Chicago-based AKP & D Message and Media, the consultancy firm founded by White House senior advisor David Axelrod, and one that represents the media needs of Democratic candidates and issues.)

If voice-over agents like Jack and Sparks are providing the talent, political media consultants like Schweitzer are driving the opportunities for voice-over actors. On any given year, his firm will employ between 70 and 125 voice-over actors, with roughly 30 of those individuals responsible for half the work. His advice to the experienced voice-over actor looking to book more political gigs, apart from informing their agent directly, is to simply reach out to the political media agencies themselves with samples of their work. (The membership directory of the multi-artisan American Association of Political Consultants would be a good place to start.)

“Bottom line is, if I haven’t heard your voice, then I can’t consider you when I’m thinking of the kind of voice I need,” says Schweitzer, “In crunch time, I’m not looking up voices on an agents’ site. The relationship must be there or have been forged through casting directors.”

And what type of voice would that usually be? “We’re looking for voices that instill dependability, that actually put you at ease,” he says. “It’s not so much age or gender but quality and ability.”

Schweitzer admits that what his Republican clients are also looking for are voices without a particular type of accent or dialect, although this sometimes changes depending on the target demographic audience (African American, Hispanic). As far as female voice-over talent is concerned, he feels his firm uses them as equally as males, especially when a male candidate’s ad is opposing a female candidate’s ad, but he admits that campaigns lean slightly more towards the use of a male voice.

This is not surprising to Jack, who offers this take: “I don’t care what anybody tells you, there are always more jobs for men than for women, and even more so in the commercial venue. You’ve got more copywriters who are men than women. It’s weighed against women.” And while Sparks also believes men dominate the voice-over field when it comes to political advertisements, she is hopeful that “women are doing more and definitely getting more and more of that share.”

With the political season getting longer each cycle, and the advent of technology that has made it possible for actors to be voicing a governor’s race in Alabama one day, and urging voters to repeal a California proposition the next, it would seem that there could be more opportunities in the future for voice-over political work. And when you consider January’s Supreme Court decision allowing corporations and unions to advertise in the political arena with no restrictions on spending, “on ads expressly urging a candidate’s election or defeat,” it would definitely seem that the opportunities for voice-over talent might grow exponentially.

Interestingly, Schweitzer seems to think not. “I don’t think [the Supreme Court decision] will mean a boon for voice-over performers. It will change the vehicle on how the messages are delivered—webcasts and long format videos versus just broadcast and cable—but it doesn’t change the number of messages or opinions. I’m sure there are people who would disagree with me on this.”

One of them is Woodel. “It’s common sense that if corporations can begin spending unlimited money on companies whose job it is to use their phenomenal expertise to motivate, sway and inspire citizens on what to buy, smoke and eat, can’t we envision a future with more political and advocacy advertising pushing you hard on who to vote for?”

If the opportunity presents itself, will the average voice-over actor enter the “political arena?”

“What I’ve always told my actors is that I respect their beliefs if they don’t want to work on a project. All I can do is present the work to them, and then they make up their minds,” says Jack.

Tanya Saracho, a Chicago writer, actress and voice-over artist since 2000 (and represented by Sparks) thinks she’ll steer away from political voice-over work. She believes there’s a big difference between the politics of pushing a product and pushing legislation or lending your voice to politicians that represent legislation or certain political leanings.

“I have never been offered a job or an audition to voice an ad for a political campaign, so this is theoretical, but of course I would not have anything to do with that racist and bigoted law.” The Mexican-born Saracho is referring, of course, to Arizona’s controversial new immigration law that was enacted this past April.

Another Chicago Hispanic stage and voice-over actress of more than 10 years, who requested that her name not be used for this article, has a different take. “I’ve thought about this…big time. I know there are people who wouldn’t take a Republican campaign or a Democratic thing, but I would,” she says. “It might be different if my face was attached, but it’s just a voice. It goes out into the air and people listen to it and at the end of the day someone is going to decide to buy something or vote for someone on their own, no matter what I say or how I say it. If I was making a lot of money and I had the opportunity to be picky, then I would be picky. But I can’t right now and there are so many of us vying for that job, if I get it I’m going to take it.”

And when asked directly if as a Latina voice-over artist she would lend her voice to a politician who may have supported Arizona’s new immigration law, she says, “Yeah, if I got a job that paid me some really decent money, regardless of how I felt, I would have to take it. And maybe that’s a lack of integrity of my part, but I think it’s just mere survival.”