He didn't start out in Hollywood's pocket. As long as we continue allow campaign contributions by corporations, anyone we elect, Utah and elsewhere, is going to end up serving some or several corporate interests over their constituents'.
yes, but nothing would bind the patsy to do so, as it would be illegal to contractually require a donation, thus they could hire him or her, but they could keep the 2 million and retire instead.
True, but I'm sure it would be laid out that they could continue to reap the rewards each year, instead of running away with one sum. Also, it wouldn't have to be 2 mil, it could be spread out over many people at amounts that aren't worth running away from (50K, etc)
Plus you could pad execs' payrolls [even more] and they would be in a position where donating it is in their best interest.
All I'm saying is that it doesn't seem like this is an actual viable solution to campaign reform. Not that I have a bett
Maybe Computer Science should be in the College of Theology.
-- R. S. Barton
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
Re:Request for Utah... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Request for Utah... (Score:2)
Re:Request for Utah... (Score:2)
Re:Request for Utah... (Score:2)
Plus you could pad execs' payrolls [even more] and they would be in a position where donating it is in their best interest.
All I'm saying is that it doesn't seem like this is an actual viable solution to campaign reform. Not that I have a bett