Web Search powered by YAHOO! SEARCH  

Currents   

share
email
print
reprint
font size
options
 
READER FEEDBACK
Post a comment


Letters: Corporations shouldn't contribute to politicians

The U.S. Supreme Court (Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission) is poised to allow corporations to contribute directly to political candidates' campaigns, adding to all the soft money they currently spend. If it allows this, the court will cover its disgraceful conduct with a lot of fine words about freedom of speech. But a corporate entity is not, to paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, created equal with human beings and endowed with inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. A corporation is created so its owners can invest money in it without liability to their other personal assets.

Corporate entities do have legal rights, to sue, and defend themselves when sued. Corporations also have the right to lobby for or against laws affecting their business. But only people have the right to influence elections. Some have suggested that corporations' rights to free speech are being abridged by laws preventing them from giving money to, and campaigning directly for, political candidates. That's ridiculous. Only the corporate executives behind the corporate entities decide what the corporations' political views are, and they are perfectly free to speak, give money, campaign, and vote as individuals.

Gretchen Cowell

Philadelphia

Comments   
Posted 07:13 AM, 11/01/2009
nancee
I agree one hundred percent. This is a ridiculous notion. The corporation is made up of the people who work for it. Are we to assume that corporations are monoliths where everyone from the CEO to the custodian think and vote the same way? Who is "the corporation" to speak for all those it employs?
Posted 10:01 AM, 11/01/2009
p.e.poole
If corporations can be barred from contributing then unions should be barred as well. Unions force members to donate to political causes that they may actually disagree with. Corporations do not force employees to contribute a dime. It is all voluntary. Let's keep in mind that restricting contributions for anyone only lets those with the best lawyers to gain influence. If you want real campaign finance reform, elect representatives that believe in free markets and less govt intervention. As long as the government can't pick winners and losers, health care reform included, there will be lobbyists and special interests spending gobs of money trying to get the upper hand. Politicians are not so unhappy with this arrangement. It helps keep them in office.
Posted 11:09 PM, 11/01/2009
mayfairforlife
Pe.poole, your spot on. any american can look at the senate and house finance commitee members campaign filings, and see the massive amounts they have taken from insurance,banking,etc. Its ridicoulous how little regulation is involved in those industry's, when you can pay a high priced team of lobbyists and make the right donations boooooyyyy do the wheels sure get greased. Everybody wins. EZ game.
Comment removed.
Posted 08:13 PM, 11/02/2009
cowell
andyeatsitall: Corporations and unions should not be treated differently when it comes to campaign finance. Currently they both are allowed to contribute to PACs ("soft money") but not directly to candidates' campaigns. The U.S. Supreme Court is considering a case which could make it legal for corporation, and in some cases unions too, to contribute directly to candidates' campaigns. My Letter to the Editor said only individuals should be allowed to do so. Some states have "paycheck protection" laws which require unions to get individual members consent to donate to PACs. Corporations do not have to ask their shareholders the same thing.
5 comments
  • Top Jobs
  • Top Homes
  • Top Cars
 
SEARCH JOBS
Glen Mills


$550,000
6 MARSHALL CT
West Chester


$889,900
104 WINDRIDGE DR
SEARCH CARS

Buy Inquirer, Daily News & Philly merchandise here including:

 
Books
 
Movies
 
Page Reprints
 
Photo Licensing
 
Photos