General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums"Citizens United" opened the flood gates for unlimited money from corporations, unions, special . .
. . . . interest groups, and other anonymous sources of millions of dollars."
What is wrong with that statement? One word in it creates an untrue implication.
Progressive dog
(6,921 posts)Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)ewagner
(18,964 posts)Where union members had to "check off" on the Union's contributions to a particular candidate or party?
What about a "stock holder's checkoff"...if your IRA mutual fund owns stock in a corporation and that corporation wants to contribute to a campaign, the ALL the stockholders, majority and minority, need to agree to it...
If corporations are "people" because the individual stockholders are people, then they should check it off...
ya think?
turtlerescue1
(1,013 posts)Its not like there can't be issues with the rest, but to say "anonymous sources" creates a really big potential.
The entire "implication" isn't healthy for those of us who are naturally by birth humans.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Romney's ten-fold advantage in funding resulted in his nomination, despite a lack of popularity with the GOP base. And Koch bros bought Ryan's spot on the ticket. While fairly popular with some GOP groups, most analysts consider him an albatross for the GE and down-ticket races.
Inkfreak
(1,695 posts)over $500 million dollars has been spent on the presidential election so far this year. Boggles the mind...