Shouldn't it be illegal -- or at least strong evidence of intent to curry illegal influence -- to give to opposing candidates? (At the same time, not because one changed one's mind.)
What else can it mean except that companies and wealthy individuals are hedging their bets, and paying both sides in hopes of having access and influence regardless of who wins? Isn't that gross?
http://www.opensecrets.org/pressreleases/2004/BushKerryContribs.asp
Campaign contributions -- voting with your pocketbook -- are offensive to the idea of one man, one vote, but they are protected by the courts as a form of free speech. Not allowing them at all would be like not allowing people to work for a candidate, politically organize, etc.
But how can hedging be seen as a form of speech? The purpose is obviously something else entirely. It's a corruption of the process. Why should it not be investigated and prosecuted?
Perhaps because we don't have sufficiently strong laws making it a crime to attempt to pay for political influence. The standards of proof are too high, there has to be a quid pro quo, etc. And the bottom line is, our traditions allow this influence purchasing -- it's simply legal.
Not the way it should be, IMO.
Seems as if a rule similar to the IRS rule on wash trades should be invented.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/10/politics/trail/10TRAIL-MONEY.html?hp