3 ms·

Wow. Your post is so misleading it borders on outright lying. Those $31k contributions come entirely from individuals. Comcast the company did not donate any mo

Wow. Your post is so misleading it borders on outright lying. Those $31k contributions come entirely from individuals. Comcast the company did not donate any money to her. Conflating individual contributions with Corporate contributions is massively misleading. Comcast has 164k employees. Do you honestly expect that most employees of Corporations agree with the political goals and objectives of their parent companies?

Rooster61 8y ago
Your argument is equally misleading. Does the fact that those contributions come from individuals somehow make them less profound? It's exceedingly important to point out who these individuals are associated with employment-wise.
- apcragg 8y ago
  I mean, yeah it makes them less profound. Individual identity is not entirely defined by place of employment. I'd imagine the vast majority of people see their employer as the means to pay bills rather than a political entity whose goals they explicitly support.
  - Rooster61 8y ago
    > not entirely No, not entirely, but it absolutely can and does factor into one's decisions in life, including who to contribute to politically. > I'd imagine the vast majority of people see their employer as the means to pay bills rather than a political entity whose goals they explicitly support. The vast majority aren't the ones typically contributing to political candidates/PACS. Contributions tend to be from those with wealth, which are inherently not the majority. In this particular case, that wealth is at least in part derived from the employers these employees work for. It's also not coincidence that those higher up in a company, and thus more invested in the company doing well, are the ones getting paid more.
Cyph0n 8y ago
If the donor's employer has no impact whatsoever, then why is the employer listed at all?
- nagVenkat 8y ago
  It has a long history about how corporations will use employees to pay for candidates. https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/8383/u-s-presidential-campaign-donations-must-submit-employer-and-occupation https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/8383/u-s-presid...
  - Cyph0n 8y ago
    Thanks for the link, but it was a Socratic question (or at least an attempt at one).

Rooster61 8y ago

Your argument is equally misleading. Does the fact that those contributions come from individuals somehow make them less profound? It's exceedingly important to point out who these individuals are associated with employment-wise.

apcragg 8y ago
I mean, yeah it makes them less profound. Individual identity is not entirely defined by place of employment. I'd imagine the vast majority of people see their employer as the means to pay bills rather than a political entity whose goals they explicitly support.
- Rooster61 8y ago
  > not entirely No, not entirely, but it absolutely can and does factor into one's decisions in life, including who to contribute to politically. > I'd imagine the vast majority of people see their employer as the means to pay bills rather than a political entity whose goals they explicitly support. The vast majority aren't the ones typically contributing to political candidates/PACS. Contributions tend to be from those with wealth, which are inherently not the majority. In this particular case, that wealth is at least in part derived from the employers these employees work for. It's also not coincidence that those higher up in a company, and thus more invested in the company doing well, are the ones getting paid more.

Cyph0n 8y ago

If the donor's employer has no impact whatsoever, then why is the employer listed at all?

nagVenkat 8y ago
It has a long history about how corporations will use employees to pay for candidates. https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/8383/u-s-presidential-campaign-donations-must-submit-employer-and-occupation https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/8383/u-s-presid...
- Cyph0n 8y ago
  Thanks for the link, but it was a Socratic question (or at least an attempt at one).