Why just one and not the other?

I got an E-mail from President Obama the other day asking me to write my representatives and ask that they back a bill forbidding corporations from funding the campaigns of officials. I Have no problem doing that, I am against business being involved in politics anymore than they are already. But I couldn't help wondering why he also didn't include unions funding our elected officials campaign too? To me one is just as wrong as the other. Why hasn't Liberals spoke out on that as they have corporate funding? Fair is fair. It's not right to do away with one and not the other. What do you think?

 

I'm sure the GOP wouldn't think that's a good trade

 

Fair trade or not, is it right for either one to fund these politicians?

 

I've seen plenty of liberals speak out about this. But dem politicans, that's a differnt story.

 

No I agree, good point.

But I doubt cons will agree, after all, big money has been funding politics alot longer than unions.

 

It's as right or wrong as all the rest of the favor market. It's how this government thing works. Most buy into both parties - that way it's a win/win for them - you might call it a bipartisan thing...

 

There should be NO funding of candidates except from a govt fund paid by taxes set up for EQUALLY funding all candidates in any one race.

 

I'm actually against any "organization" doing the fund gathering or distribution. Unions don't represent the political positions of each of its members, just like corporations don't represent the political positions of each of its members. For that reason, they shouldn't use funds gathered from those entities to financially support a candidate.

I'd still rather put limits on the process for election and the way candidates can spend their money, before changing the way people show their support for their candidates. In most cases, the salesman is more sleazy and diabolical than the buyer.

 

Do you mean even good ole China shouldn't be able to help fund particular political parties??? Radical idea!

 

I think you've got a perfectly good point, and I agree.

But you can't blame people for not wanting to silence unions, since they speak for the working class (or at least purport to), and that's most of us. People don't have that sympathy for the corporations, since they speak just for corporations, who don't seem to have the interests of the working class in mind.

But I'm fine with it. I won't be championing the silencing of the unions, but if you'll silence the corporations first, I won't object.