So I was reading this thread
http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/161862-florida-leads-the-way.html
And I was reading this passage in the link in the OP
Republicans say the intent of the bill is to empower union members by giving them more say in how their dues are spent, and to allow them to continue participating in a union even if they dont agree with the unions political activity.
OK
So why not give shareholders the same rights as union members? A lot of shareholders do not approve of their money being used for political purposes yet they have no say in how their money is spent. Why not pass a law which requires corporations to ask permission from shareholders to use their funds to promote political causes and political lobbying? Why not give shareholders more say in how their money is spent, and allow people to continue acting as a shareholder even if they don't agree with the company's political activities?
Why would Republicans be opposed to this? I mean, if they are so worried about individual's monies be used in a manner in which the individual disagrees, why would they not apply consistent standards between businesses and unions? Or is this all just a thinly-veiled political attack on an opponent?
WOw are you ignorant.
Corporations are banned from giving money to political candidates, period. Have been since the 1950s
I don't see anywhere in his post where he said they can