I support the move to ban corporate and union election donations. While I accept Councilor Ferguson’s assertion that councilors will not sell their souls for a $750.00 corporate or union donation, it is less about actualities and more about, as the Mayor correctly stated , perceptions.
Having said that, we should not exclude the possibility, as distasteful as it may be, that a $750.00 donation may "buy" impact; particularly when it becomes $750.00 multiplied by the number of companies or unions willing to contribute.
I do not find the argument that these corporate and union donations serve as an essential means to allow companies and unions to convey their values, compelling. There are other ways of doing so and if for a moment, we accept the premise, notwithstanding perceptions, that a $750 maximum donation is inconsequential to any sense of influence, it follows that the cessation of that measure is inconsequential or of marginal impact to companies or unions.
Mayor Eisenberger’s campaign demonstrated that it is possible to win an election without the need for union or corporate contributions. Sure one can argue that there were other factors at play and that the successful election bid did not hinge solely on the presence or absence of these types of contributions, but that can be said of any election. In the end, the direction the Mayor has charted allows an opportunity to rid the process of a factor that , rightly or wrongly, may be perceived as a contaminant.
It’s the right thing to do and my parting advice to council is to stay the course and not flip flop on the issue.
Friday, August 14, 2009
2 comments:
Your comments are welcome. Please abide by the blog's policy on posting. This blog facilitates discussion from all sides of issues. Opposite viewpoints are welcome, provided they are respectful. Name calling is not allowed and any posts that violate the policy, will not be authorized to appear. This blog also reserves the right to exclude comments that are off topic or are otherwise unprofessional. This blog does not assume any liability whatsoever for comments posted. People posting comments or providing information on interviews, do so at their own risk.
This blog believes in freedom of speech and operates in the context of a democratic society, which many have fought and died for.
Views expressed by commentators or in articles that appear here, cannot be assumed to be espoused by The Hamiltonian staff or its publisher.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Personally, I agree with Ferguson for once. I don't think anybody would sell their soul for $750 or more if the same corporate owners made a personal donation as well. It is simply not worth it.
ReplyDeleteI like to see candidates that have corporate backings, this leads me to believe that they have a business background and are business friendly. After all, it is the corporations who take the risks and invest and create jobs and new assessment and wealth. To see candidates with this kind of backing assures me somewhat in my due diligence.
It seems to me that people have this perceived idea that business is evil but who is it that puts food on their tables and creates opportunity?
With respect to land developers, many, including the Raise the Hammer folks see them as evil and destroying our community. The way I see it, every house they build becomes occupied by you and I, so they are serving the market demand. One cannot fault them for that and if they pay some wages and make a few dollars, good for them.
I say let them all contribute.
I really like having this new blog and hope it is a little more open minded then Raise the Hammer. Keep it up, I'll spread the word.
I applaud Mayor Fred's afforts to have this pushed through, but the problem that exists is so much more then this.
ReplyDeleteOne must do research to see through the messaging, not all corporations are the good guys, they do not have the interests of the people or the environment, it is all about profits, it does not matter who or what is in their way.