Chick-fil-A has gotten itself in hot water recently after its President announced opposition to same-sex marriage. Some people have decided to no longer eat at Chick-fil-A as a result, and others make a point to support the chain. Such actions are necessary in a post-Citizens United world, where one must consider what might be done with the money they shell out for whatever widget they may be considering. Chick-fil-A gives millions to anti-gay groups. Money spent at Chevron or on Stainmaster carpet might wind up in a right-wing attack ad funded by the Koch Brothers, or money at Starbucks might go to providing benefits to the same-sex partners of employees.
Consumers have the right to know where their money goes. So it's disheartening to see the failure of laws which require the disclosure of Super PAC donor lists. I'm all for recognizing the right of a citizen to say with a clear voice that another person is a charlatan and a scoundrel, but the identity of the accuser should be disclosed. Allowing anonymity encourages the sort of negative smears we seem to be getting. If it were public knowledge that Corporation X were behind one particular smear, the fear of a consumer backlash might temper the impulse to attack.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
It doesn't help, because ownership of the corp is still kept secret. A corporation would establish a subsidiary for the sole purpose of making contributions. This is why I hated citizens united. I think only individuals or general partnerships have a right to political speech.
So Alex, what's your limit on the number of people who can get together before they're not allowed to pool their money for political speech? 10? 20? 50? 500?
Post a Comment