Here's another one I don't understand

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-0728-target-politics-20100728,0,6274128.story

There’s been a lot said about Target’s $150,000 contribution to Minnesota State Representative Tom Emmer’s campaign for Governor as well as the Supreme Court’s January decision in Citizens United v Federal Election Commission. Anyone can guess that I disagree that corporations should receive the same rights and protections that individuals do, but I don’t really care to weigh in on it right now.

What I don’t understand from the LA Times story linked above is how Target contributed $150,000 to Emmer’s campaign while Target’s Chief Executive Gregg Steinhafel gave $2,000, the maximum contribution under state law.

Even if I were to concede that corporations have equal rights and protections under the law, I don’t understand how a corporation is exempt from contributions caps, allowing a corporation to make contributions to a political candidate 75 times larger than an individual is allowed to.

When the Citizens United decision came down, a lot of people called it the end of democracy. I thought they were being reactionary and hysterical. But if the result is that corporations now have unlimited ability to make campaign contributions while individuals remain hampered by campaign finance regulations, then perhaps I underestimated the danger.