The Virginian Pilot believes that campaign contributions by corporations and unions should be limited. Interesting combination, don’t you think? So which candidates agree? Click on the graphic to find out 
(Graphic credit: The Virginian Pilot)
On a related note, the Pilot’s editorial today talks about campaign audits (a question asked of the candidates earlier) and explains the need for them as it relates to the possibility of campaign money being used for unauthorized expenses. While I’m all in favor of campaign audits (although for different reasons than those of the Pilot), until and unless the penalties for campaign finance violations are significantly increased, audits are just a waste of time.
no position?
Posted by Brian Kirwin | Wednesday, October 24, 2007, 1:24 pmThey should be limited to $0.
Posted by Anon E. Mouse | Wednesday, October 24, 2007, 6:49 pmMouse: “They should be limited to $0.”
Why?
Posted by Brian | Thursday, October 25, 2007, 3:38 pmBecause they are not people. Campaign contributions should be limited to individuals. There is no way that company or union campaign contributions can accurately reflect their shareholders’ or members’ political positions. Let them encourage their shareholders and members to contribute to particular campaigns, but don’t allow them to contribute directly.
Posted by Anon E. Mouse | Friday, October 26, 2007, 8:42 amCorporations and unions have interests that are affected by the actions of the government and they can’t vote. Why shouldn’t they be allowed to have some say in the political process? If their shareholders or members don’t like the donations, they can work to change the leadership or get out.
One other thing, if we aren’t going to let corporations participate in the political process then we certainly should not be taxing them. I’d say the same for unions, but so far as I know they are not taxed.
Posted by Brian | Friday, October 26, 2007, 4:03 pm