Obama and many people are decrying the Supreme Court's Citizens United vs. Clinton which removed limits on corporate spending on elections. I believe that it is a victory for free speech, that there shouldn't be any limits but full disclosure. It is a double-edge sword: if a certain company or interest group you do not like donates money to Candidate A, then that could harm the candidate in the eyes of some voters.
But the McCain's and Obama's of the world just think this will open the floodgates to corporations and special interests controlling government (even though Obama received more corporate donations than any other candidate in history). But is this so? Steve Chapman doesn't think so.
He points to Obama's home state of Illinois. Corporations there already have no limits on donations to state candidates. Has this bought them undue influence? Think again. Illinois is one of the most unfriendly business states. Unions are very powerful, there are no limits on punitive damages, and businesses are leaving in droves. Doesn't sound like their unlimited donations have won them any favors with Illinois pols.
Maybe Obama should look back to his home state.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment