And why does Ron Paul oppose it? Could there be any relation to campaign contributions? The above image details which companies were top contributors to each of these politicians.
Click to enlarge (image credit here). The answer is not subtle. If anyone does not think that American corporations buy, own, and control American politicians, they are naive. It may well be a worldwide phenomenon, but it's shameful.
p.s. - as an aside, those top three contributors to Dr. Paul are not the uniformed services themselves, it's the servicemen themselves. In spite of (or because of) his opposition to the war, Dr. Paul was the top recipient of campaign contributions from personnel in the armed forces. Food for thought...
Kudos to Ron Paul. But I have a questions. Do the contributions listed come from the corporations themselves, or employees of the corporations? I'm curious why one corporation would donate to both camps, unless the donations came at different times in order to secure votes for particular legislation, and not campaigning for President. Am I missing something?
ReplyDeleteThis isn't unusual. Corporations often (perhaps typically) contribute to multiple candidates in a race, so that no matter who wins they will have supported the officeholder. They only don't support someone if he/she is clearly opposed to them (Ron Paul as an example, but there are many others).
ReplyDelete