Do you think it is a problem if Clinton receives 20K from News Corp?

[still_one]

http://www.rawstory.com/showoutarticle.php?src=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.yahoo.com%2Fs%2Fap%2F20070802%2Fap_on_el_pr%2Fedwards_news_corp_2%26printer%3D1%3B_ylt%3DAuQwieJPpUX3RNoVeiO6IUJh24cA

Without getting into what fox stands for, or its agenda, I have a problem with ANY news organization giving political contributions since they are supposed to report the news.

It is definitely a conflict of interest in my view

[LSparkle]

1. I agree. Even worse if they're getting money from NBC/GE

or defense contractors (not that it looking bad is going to stop that from happening). Huge conflict of interest in my opinion too ... but our system is so fucked up I'm sure it happens all the time.

[Mojambo]

2. She's been Murdoch's horse for a while now. n/t

[still_one]

6. Should any candidate be taking bribes from companies? That's what it comes down to

Will they expect political favors later? How about pushing legislation to allow media monopolies throughout the country?

It is way past time for public financing of elections, and to get rid of lobbyists

[mod mom]

18. they are backing her in the primaries as she is their only chance (outside of blatant fraud)

of winning. She is way too devisive and will turn a lot of progressive Dems toward 3rd parties. that why GOP backed corporate media, their friends the pollsters, and folks like Murdoch are backing her.

[Canuckistanian]

19. You got it

RW Hillary-hatred + liberal controversy = electoral victory.

Or at least to get as close as they were in 2000. The rest has already been taken care of.

[glowing]

3. AGREE.

[movonne]

4. I'll do one better, I don't think they should get money from any corporation...

[still_one]

7. you are right, it implies that they owe a political favor /nt

[MonkeyFunk]

20. Then it's a good thing

it's been illegal for corporations to give money to candidates for decades.

[Totally Committed]

5. Hell yes! --- It's wrong.

Our system is broken, and we need to fix it. No wonder Senator Clinton's candidacy is being made to look inevitable by the media. They've bought into her campaign, and now have an investment to see her nominated.

Think of the ratings! :sarcasm:

TC

[still_one]

10. Do the people have any say? /nt

[stillcool]

8. A conflict of interest?..

maybe not.

[still_one]

11. how so. Doesn't receiving an amount of money from a corporation imply that?

why do corporations do it anyway? Don't they want favorable legislation for their business?

[stillcool]

15. meaning her interest..

is not conflicted....corporations dictate, politicians comply.

[saracat]

9. Yes. It is wrong.It is as bad as taking money from the Klu Klux Clan!

It is not as if no one knows what Murdoch represents.

[still_one]

13. I wanted to generalize it to corporations in general, because it definitely

implies something in return

[OrangeCountyDemocrat]

12. Hillary Is Part Of Corporate Establishment

Murdoch wants her in the WH.

She's one of them.

Another reason why this country will continue in the wrong direction if and when she's handed the keys.

It's inevitible. The powers that be are going to see to it that she's elected.

[still_one]

14. In all fairness so are most of the "leading" candidates /nt

[Jack Rabbit]

16. Don't say News and NewsCorp in the same sentence

Rupert Murdoch does not do journalism.

Do I have a problem with Senator Clinton recieving money from Rupert Murdoch? Yes, I do. What does he want from her?

[B2G]

17. Well Mr. Edwards should

think before he calls the other candidates out.

HarperCollins Publishers published his book "Home".
HarperCollins Publishers is owned by News Corp.

I don't see an explanation of that anywhere in his statement. I hate the primaries. It's depressing the way they attack each other sometimes.

[still_one]

21. I don't think it is the same thing. One is a business decision by a publisher on a book

and another is a legalized bribe