[AromeWahmaron]

What? Are you seriously asking me if corporations should be able to void employment contracts because of a decision that a politician makes?

Not at all - I am asking if, following the completion of the contract, the corporation has the right to say "we're not going to negotiate another contract with you because you donated to Congressman Peckerwood".

Obviously, they cannot vitiate an existing contract. But should the corporation be free to refuse to renew a contract with the union and lay off the employees because of a donation?

Really? And you're comparing that to the right of the citizenry to decide whether or not to do business with a corporation?

Not at all - just noting the iniquity in the system. Unions are completely free to donate millions to politicians without fear of the same repercussions corporations must fear. Does that not seem a bit unfair?

I mean, seriously, Matt, if I wanted to push it, I could make the argument that you're taking a stance that people should be able to be forced to do business with certain companies, just 'cause. You know - you have to meet your McDonald's ration this week - 3 lunches. I know that isn't the kind of stance that you would take, so picture my confusion.

That's not what I am saying. What I am saying is that if it is kosher for a union to organize a mass boycott of a company like a bank - and put who knows how many innocent people out of work - why should the corporations not be free to say "once this contract is up, we're no longer employing members of Local 123 because of Local 123's political donations".

As I said, ideally neither the union nor the corporation should be allowed to donate to politicians.

Ironically, in this case, I am the one standing up for the unrepresented "little guy" who is about to be out of work because of union activity, and you're standing up for the folks trying to crush these "little guys" to make a point about "standing up for the little guy".

Matt