The idea that any corporation should take shareowner money and give it to a candidate is just plain wrong! First of all, why should the corporation take a Pennsylvania (shareowner) widow's money and give it to a candidate in California? Further, why should an election in California be impacted by funds taken from a shareowner in Pennsylvania?
If a corporation believes the election of a candidate would be beneficial to the shareowners and other stakeowners, it is certainly free to make that case to those who are qualified voters since they know where their employees and shareowners live. In that way, the qualified voters can make the determination if the candidate is worthy of support.
There is a parallel case to be made against union contributions but more on that tomorrow...
No comments:
Post a Comment