Steve, I tend to agree with all the Seminole has said so far. I'll add this for what it's worth. From working for two large Wall St. firms, I know that the financial services industry in general gives fairly equally to both sides during the Presidential campaigns. I've been told there are two reasons for this posture. One is that they don't know who will win and don't want to be on the losing side. The other, and more important reason, is that their customers and shareholders and even board members represent both political affiliations, so why alienate any of these groups, especially your customers.
I also know that this is, or was in years past, the posture of Wal-Mart, the nations biggest retailer.
My guess is that individual corporations, and especially publicly held companies that do business across state lines, will adhere to this position. Particularly with regard to national elections.
In the past, it has been the ads of the 527s that have been so persuasive, not political ads coming out of individual corporations, of which not one comes to mind? I think going forward it will be the same. The stepped up advertising will come from issue advocacy groups and trade groups and not from individual corporations.
Each of us can make our voice heard by contributing to such a group.
The question I now have is whether or not a particular issue advocacy group is limited in how much they can give to an individual candidate, as we as individuals are? |
