2 ms·

>While this headline is factual, this is like saying "Man With Pre-Existing Health Conditions Donated to the Obama Campaign, and Now We Have Obamacare". And wh

>While this headline is factual, this is like saying "Man With Pre-Existing Health Conditions Donated to the Obama Campaign, and Now We Have Obamacare". And what you are saying is like saying "a pebble fell into the ocean and a boulder fell into the ocean and it's the same because they both produced waves". Donations from the 1% are many orders of magnitude bigger than donations from ordinary folks mainly because ordinary folks live paycheck to paycheck and do not have the time or resources to donate. The leverage a big corporations have over politicians is enormous. IMHO they should have zero leverage (no vote, no influence).

downandout 9y ago
I suppose I should have put the amount in my headline. Let's say someone with the same amount to donate - $300K in this case - donated to Obama, because he wanted to support a candidate that would introduce legislation that would allow him to get health insurance despite several pre-existing conditions. Would you view that as wrong? You may, but it's certainly not illegal, and it's no different than what happened here. Again, people shop for and donate to candidates that will serve their interests. If you want that to be illegal, write your representatives.
- ravingraven 9y ago
  >You may, but it's certainly not illegal, and it's no different than what happened here. No one is arguing that it is illegal (not even the article). It is a bad system.
  - downandout 9y ago
    >No one is arguing that it is illegal (not even the article) Yes and no. The article is trying to imply that he paid off a politician to carry out his vendetta against Google, which is illegal. They don't come out and say it directly, because they know he'd sue them into oblivion. But that is what they are implying. They're saying "there's smoke here...must be a fire somewhere!"
    - mirimir 9y ago
      Right. If Google had donated to his campaign, and he subsequently didn't investigate plausible antitrust allegations against Google, that'd be suspicious. This is just a guy listening to a supporter.

downandout 9y ago

I suppose I should have put the amount in my headline. Let's say someone with the same amount to donate - $300K in this case - donated to Obama, because he wanted to support a candidate that would introduce legislation that would allow him to get health insurance despite several pre-existing conditions. Would you view that as wrong? You may, but it's certainly not illegal, and it's no different than what happened here. Again, people shop for and donate to candidates that will serve their interests. If you want that to be illegal, write your representatives.

ravingraven 9y ago
>You may, but it's certainly not illegal, and it's no different than what happened here. No one is arguing that it is illegal (not even the article). It is a bad system.
- downandout 9y ago
  >No one is arguing that it is illegal (not even the article) Yes and no. The article is trying to imply that he paid off a politician to carry out his vendetta against Google, which is illegal. They don't come out and say it directly, because they know he'd sue them into oblivion. But that is what they are implying. They're saying "there's smoke here...must be a fire somewhere!"
  - mirimir 9y ago
    Right. If Google had donated to his campaign, and he subsequently didn't investigate plausible antitrust allegations against Google, that'd be suspicious. This is just a guy listening to a supporter.