comment: >
  
  Contributing to the delinquency of fools who shouldn't be there in the first place.  These extremists don't even know what their job is supposed to be.  Calling Republican Congressmen "public servants" is factually inaccurate as they are unable to conduct the People's business.
  Those donations are directly related to the literal paralysis and inability to govern that we are seeing now.
context: They have money for this, but not taxes. >
  
  This is the money they spend to not pay taxes. >
  
  Corporations don’t pay for this unless it’s a super pac. Even then, it’s 99% more likely that this was the doing of a non-connected PAC, which the employees contribute to and which is the only way a PAC can directly support the campaigns of the election deniers/members. >
  
  The article says different. For example, corporations paused donations from their PACs then started up again. >
  
  Corporate PACs are also known as non-connected PACs, and are regulated differently. Corporations cannot donate under any circumstances to non-connected PACs. And, non-connected PACs contributed differently to candidates. >
  
  Just going by the article. However, do you know of an article or even a youtube vid that kinda breaks some of this stuff down? Stuff hurts my brain. I do know there is one watchdog group that pretty much ever day either sues or submits complaints to the FEC. I think it was campaignlegal.org. >
  
  I don't, unfortunately. The best I could suggest would be the FEC website, which does a bad job of explaining things. Skadden Arps (law firm) might be a good place to look. Either way, it's a complex topic, and is why it comes to no surprise that most people get it wrong. >
  
  Thanks. Every now and then I go to read up but I'm really good about distracting myself from the topic. One of these days. >
  
  Which corporations? Anyone have a list?
  Article won't open for me >
  
  There’s so many that it’d be easier to just mention the ones that actually stopped giving money >
  
  Kind my point in my other comment and every single time the pitch forks come out.
  Last I heard Costco was still on the short list of mostly good. >
  
  If our justice system won't hold them accountable and voters won't hold them accountable, I don't see why anyone would expect corporations to hold them accountable. No one seems to fucking care that the party that currently controls the house and supreme court is led by a man that tried to overthrow the government. >
  
  Citizens United ruling gave our country over to corporations and foreign oligarchs... Think about that for a while. Our own supreme Court handed our country over to foreign adversaries. Who's the real bad guy here? Trump, or the Federalist Society? >
  
  
  Who's the real bad guy here? Trump, or the Federalist Society?
  
  Two things can be bad simultaneously. >
  
  Also bad: colorectal cancer.
  Three things can be bad simultaneously. >
  
  Yet most people have a hard time paying rent. If all this money just went toward actually helping people, we might have the smaller government these corps so desperately want. >
  
  No shit. And next time people threaten to boycott they'll say that they stopped donating AGAIN
  The media, many of whom they sponsor will call them out when something tragic happens and people call these corporations out on social media. Then the corporation will release some sort of a statement that they'll stop giving to show they stand with whatever normal cause it is this time, the media will praise mention it, they get praised and people on social media pat themselves on the back. Months later, when everyone stops paying attention they'll start giving again. Rinse and repeat 
  Nice to see a piece ln this now instead of when instant reactions to something awful are taking place >
  
  That's it, I'm never shopping at Lockheed Martin again.