Well, you asked, so . . . I think you are definitely spinning your wheels here. As you state, Meg Whitman has every right as a citizen to support any candidate she chooses. Her position doesn't proscribe her rights as a U.S. citizen. Describing her behavior as "flagrant" is needlessly inflammatory - again, she has every right to support any candidate she chooses, while staying within the bounds of federal law.
To take it one step farther, corporations have a long history of supporting candidates who management feels will facilitate a good climate for business. To be frank, I am more offended when I see a large corporation shoveling money to both sides in an election -- I see that as a "flagrant" example of influence-purchasing. One more question: would you be equally offended if Ms. Whitman were supporting, say, Hillary Clinton? -----Original Message----- From: MoPo List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of channinglylethomson Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 1:10 AM To: [email protected] Subject: [MOPO] Off-Topic: Politics and Posters (EBAY's Meg Whitman and Republican Nominee Mitt Romney) NY Times Article of 1/9/2007 I was reading the New York Times today and almost gagged on my coffee as I read the following article on former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney's hi-tech fundraising campaign for the Republican candidacy for President in 2008: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/09/us/politics/09romney.html If you take a look, EBAY Chief Executive Meg Whitman was working the phones for the former Governor and is quoted in the article. The reason I was distressed by this fact is that as an EBAY buyer and seller, I have paid a fair share of fees toward the bottom line of the company over the last 10 years. Much of all fees incurred eventually end up in the bank accounts of the company's highly-paid Executive officers. Meg Whitman is a voracious supporter of Mitt Romney, unarguably the Republican positioned to the far right on the political spectrum. Make no mistake, he is a right wing, Mormon, religious, extremist candidate, not a centrist or moderate. So, inadvertently, I am finding myself in the position of supporting Governor Romney in his run for the candidacy via my contributions to Ms. Whitman's salary. I realize that Meg Whitman has a right as a citizen (and within Federal donation guidelines) to support any candidate she choses. However, I do question the judgment of the company and of the Executives on board in allowing her to so openly and flagrantly support such a candidate. It's not really the money, in this instance, but rather her influence and persuasiveness. Meg Whitman is a very powerful person, undoubtedly one of the most significant business leaders in the world. I question her judgment in this matter. Anyone have any thoughts on this or am I just spinning my wheels by bringing it up here? My sense is that many members of the so-called EBAY "community" would never consider supporting such a candidate, inadvertently or otherwise. Channing Thomson in San Francisco Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com ___________________________________________________________________ How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List Send a message addressed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L The author of this message is solely responsible for its content. Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com ___________________________________________________________________ How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List Send a message addressed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.
