Corporate Interests in Both Campaigns
It appears that both the Obama and the McCain campaigns have links / ties to various Corporate Interests, but BOTH have ties to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Now that brings up an interesting quandary, because THIS IS WHAT IS WRONG WITH POLITICS. Too many CORPORATE INTERESTS are heavily involved in the Campaigns of Candidates for High Office, not just President.
Rick Davis, McCain’s campaign manager, was president of the Homeownership Alliance, which advocates the expansion of homeownership through low-interest mortgages funded by Fannie and Freddie. Arthur B. Culvahouse Jr., who is heading McCain’s vice presidential vetting panel, was a lobbyist for Fannie Mae. Mark Buse, a longtime McCain aide, lobbied for Freddie Mac before returning to McCain’s Senate staff. (source - CBS News)
Obama also has ties to the firms. James A. Johnson, the former head of his vice presidential vetting panel, was a chief executive of Fannie Mae, as was Franklin D. Raines, who said this week that he has been consulting with the campaign on housing issues. Maria Echaveste, a top Clinton White House official whose husband, Christopher Edley Jr., is a close Obama friend and adviser, has lobbied for Freddie Mac, and former commerce secretary William M. Daley, a top Obama backer, was an in-house lobbyist. (source - CBS News)
Now I know the argument is that by restricting who can or can’t contribute is limiting Free Speech rights. The US Supreme Court seems to agree that somehow a Corporate Entity is entitled to Free Speech Rights. However, the more we allow Corporate Interests to finance campaigns, the less protection we will get from our Government. I mean it should be clear to everyone by now, that Corporations DO NOT HAVE THE PEOPLE’S BEST INTERESTS AT HEART.
If they did, would there be so many Product & Food Recalls?
To begin with, a Corporation or Union that makes ANY POLITICAL CONTRIBUTION is doing it out of Self Interests, and WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF ITS OWNERS. Seriously, if you own stock in a Company, or are a member of a Union, were you asked if they should use COMPANY/UNION FUNDS to support a Candidate or Political Party?
Secondly, even if they did, there is no way that 100% of Shareholders/Members would agree on the selection. So what about the rights of those Minority Owners? Are they supposed to simply allow a company to invest their money at will, to a cause they may NOT agree with?
Obviously Corporations/Unions can, which is wrong, which is also why they SHOULD BE DENIED THAT ABILITY.
Any single person, whether a ditch digger, unemployed worker, welfare mom, or CEO of a huge Corporation should be allowed to contribute to any Political Campaign they wish to. They should ALL be free to donate money to any organization that supports a particular cause, that in turn campaigns for a political candidate or party. And YES there should be limits, just as there are on your RRSP (401K) contributions.
Action Groups need to be totally transparent. I don’t want some phony ‘citizens for’ group bullshitting and clouding the issue. If they are funded by a special interest group, it should be CLEARLY NOTED, and let US decide if their position if free of self interests.
Simple truth is that while the US Supreme Court may consider a corporation has the right of Free Speech, and some may think that any Corporation or Union should be allowed to donate MILLIONS OF DOLLARS to political campaigns, the fact is that it takes away our FREEDOM TO CHOOSE. It limits the candidates we get, and it places them at risk for being corrupted.
Every Man / Woman Has Their Price » Do we really want to find out what THAT PRICE IS for our Leaders?
List of US Congressional Members & Contact Info
Table of contents for Principles of Democracy
- Accessory to Torture?
- One Billion Dollars to Elect a President
- Obama, Clinton Raise Sixty Million
- Failure to be Accountable
- Is He a Terrorist?
- US Courts Figure Out What Democracy Means
- Who Are The Good Guys? Us or Them?
- Gutless and Disgraceful
- Corporate Interests in Both Campaigns
- Terrorists 5.5 Years, Border Guards 10 Years Plus
Ian @ July 17, 2008
[...] [Technorati] Tag results for caregiver wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerpt Our old doctor kept saying, as you get older, things don’t work as well, which was really annoying. I mean yes, Mom is 91 years old, but still, complaints can’t just be tossed off as, ‘well as we get older’ which was his standard answer. The new Doctor on the other hand, seems a bit more pragmatic, and at least, listens. Though time will tell how good he is. Yet I wonder, at what goes on in the mind of someone who is Mom’s age? Like this afternoon, we got her to soak her feet in one of those [...]