Reply #14: Dishonest

[Eloriel]

I've sure seen more of you in the past two days than at any time previously, Greenohio. Not overly crazy about the comments I've seen friom you so far and this one, for example, is especially troublesome. In fact, I call it downright dishonest. (But that's okay, I see a lot of dishonest posts where Howard Dean comes up as a subject, and I see you bringing him up and/or responding to threads with him mentioned a lot.)

Interesting too that you had this information so close at hand but didn't bother to post a link, isn't it? Must've been an oversight on your part.

Okay. First, corporations of and by themselves cannot contribute directly to political campaigns, not legally anyway. So your little lists are already misleading without that explanation provided. Of course, this information is compiled because INDIVIDUALS who make contributions must list their employer -- which means anyone from the CEO and other top execs at, say, Viacomm, to the most newly hired hourly security guard will be listed from the same company. Again, can be very misleading. In Barbara Boxer's case, there might have been 20 individuals from YankeeNets giving $100 each for the $20K you have listed. Or 10 top execs and Boardmembers giving the full $2K each. We don't know from your, um, "data."

I really don't know about the others you listed, but in Howard Dean's case he received his campaign funds overwhelmingly from individuals at $5 to the maximum $2000 a clip, MOST of it well, well under $100 a contribution (tho many of us contibuted our little bits as many times as we could afford to up to the $2K limit). So as an avid Howard Dean supporter, I really resent your misleading and utterly dishonest post.
All probably unintentional, right?

Now why not post the link and let's please hereafter try to be considerably more intellectually HONEST about such things and/or do a better (more complete and thorough) job of research and scholarship, eh?