So says Brian, and he's probably right1. About the ban. But is it a good idea? Let's read some words:The energy and natural resource sectors, including fossil fuel producers and mining firms, gave $2.6 million to the DNC in 2016, according to data collected by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. That’s a pittance compared to the $56.1 million that came from the finance and real estate sectors, the DNC’s largest corporate donors that year...
I can see two possibilities:
1. Selfless corporations routinely donate money to incorruptible politicians because they value a vibrant political process.
2. Self-interested corporations routinely donate money to corruptible (or do I mean "influencable" - would that be more polite?) politicians because they expect results favourable to themselves.
Those are perhaps the extremes; there are shades between. But the answer is of course 2. So the Dems are effectively saying that they don't want to be
Actually, having pols
But are the Dems so bought by Evil Oil Companies that they'll do nothing but their bidding? That seems unlikely. Are the Dems under the impression that fossil fuels could be erased tomorrow and everything would go well? I doubt even they are that stupid. So this appears to be a way for the Dems to tell the Evil Oil Companies to fuck off and go talk to the Repubs instead, which I'm sure they will. Perhaps the Dems also believe that Evil Real Estate companies are universally a force for good, in which case they are fools; apart from anything else they're lobbying for all that stupid fedreral flood insurance.
The real problem, as I've said before, is the USAnian eleectorate and it's dumb ideas. Actually, there's a bit more to it than that but now is not the time for subtlety.
Refs
* Compulsive Reader by Pablo Gallo: TF.
Notes
1. Update 2018/10: they changed their minds.
5 comments:
Perhaps its to do with the perception that being linked to the oil companies will increasingly be an electoral liability as climate change becomes a more pressing problem.
It might be, but in that case would you expect them to do it noisily, rather than quietly?
I suppose that depends on whether "we did before" is more important than "we don't any more".
How much green did they take last year from the carbon offset buying classes?
Producing television both public and didactic is an expensive business, and littleis paid for by the Kochs-- in the generation Turner's network has been at work, few have accused Captain Planet of being a Republican.
"The real problem, as I've said before, is the USAnian eleectorate and it's dumb ideas."
When discussing the intelligence of an electorate (especially one not your own), it's generally good practice to run your posts through a spell checker, and to know the difference between "it's" and "its".
Post a Comment