Defense Giants Should Stop Funding Election Deniers

[Nevilledog]

Link to tweet

Tweet text:

Defense One
@DefenseOne
"Corporations that owe their existence to our public dollars are donating to candidates who oppose democracy. Yes, you read that right." | COMMENTARY

Defense Giants Should Stop Funding Election Deniers
If it turns out that antidemocratic action is not a red line for the defense industry, we need to start asking more serious questions.
defenseone.com
1:23 PM · Jan 6, 2022

https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2022/01/defense-giants-should-stop-funding-election-deniers/360394/

Corporations that owe their existence to our public dollars are donating to candidates who oppose democracy. Yes, you read that right.

A new report from Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington finds that in 2021, military contractors were among the top corporate donors to legislators who refused to certify the results of the 2020 presidential election. Topping the list was industry giant Boeing, who gave $346,500 to GOP campaign committees or election objectors’ campaigns – and even donated to state attorneys general who worked to overturn the election results. Other major contractors who donated to election denialists include General Dynamics, which gave $233,500; Lockheed Martin, $205,000; L3Harris, $173,000; Northrop Grumman, $151,000; and Raytheon, $150,500.

As Roll Call reported this week, the presence of Boeing, Lockheed, and Northrop on the list is notable since those companies paused political donations after the Jan. 6 insurrection. They quietly restarted them, however, and now fund politicians who take flagrantly antidemocratic stances. Last month, The Hill noted that General Dynamics, Lockheed, and Raytheon had even donated to Rep. Ronny Jackson, R-TX, who published an op-ed that fraudulently claimed “the election was stolen from President Trump” and called for overturning the results. Denialist recipients of defense industry dollars aren’t just House Republicans, though. They also include rising GOP figures like Sen. Tommy Tuberville, R-Ala., who holds a powerful position on the Senate Armed Services Committee.

The influence of military contractors is a topic of considerable debate in Washington and in recent years there has been growing attention to corporate funding of think tanks, policy conferences, and yes, political campaigns. Views on the subject range from outright denial of contractor influence to deep concern that corporate power is undermining U.S. foreign policy. The debate is frequently heated. But one would hope that even those who doubt corporate money affects policymaking would be bothered by contractor endorsement of insurrectionary politicians. Giving money to legislators who want to overturn election results is not participation in the democratic process, but subversion of it. Adherence to basic democratic principles—like accepting an obvious and well-documented election loss—should become a prerequisite for receiving industry dollars.

*snip*

[pecosbob]

1. IMO any corporation that receives government contracts should be barred from political expenditures

You either have clean politics or you don't. Voting Rights and Campaign Finance reform should be our party's two most important political goals.

Climate change is and should be a more important goal, but it's more existential than political.