Bigger role for big money in U.S. politics

I don't have a problem with unrestricted corporate donations to political campaigns. If you read the data compiled by those who track such donations you'll see most corporate donors hedge their bets by contributing amounts to both parties. And, the bulk of it goes to the party having the majority voice at that particular time.


What I don't abide are the appointment calendars of those elected officials that meet with the donors afterwards and find out what strings are attached in order to get further donations. But, if most politicians weren't so obsequious about campaign coffers and paid more attention to their moral compass, then excessive donations wouldn't be a problem, would they?

In Response To:
So corporations and unions are short on opportunities to sway elections? Radio and television aren’t saturated enough with vicious hit jobs on the candidates they oppose?
Such is the logic of the U.S. Supreme Court, which shook decades of once-settled law Thursday by striking down crucial limits on corporate “campaign speech” – i.e., campaign spending.
The court’s five-member conservative majority overturned major precedents, a key provision of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill, and much of a 63-year-old law that barred companies and unions from raiding their general treasuries to mount media blitzes for or against specific candidates.