Quite. But I can see the point that they should be allowed their say.
I think they should have to be clear about who they are and all that.
And I think you are correct, it is abused.
How to correct that, without limiting someone's ( real person, citizen ) right to speech and petition?

But campaign contributions, ax them. Or make them anonymous.

Express your opinion
Say what you think
Assemble and speak ( but neither a corporation nor a union is a political assembly, they have other purposes, and the others in those assemblages are likely not like minded )
Freedom of speech, the right to address/petition your government,very important.
But when money makes it so that others cannot address their government, that is wrong.

Campaign contributions by corporations are bribery
If they are not, then anonymous donations would suit the purpose. But you know that would fly like a led zeppelin.

OK I've read "various articles in the Seattle Times.

I read the one about the state auditor being indicted.

I read the one about the infant getting shot in the head in Kent in a drive-by.

I read the one about the whooping cough outbreak (which erroneously claims that herd immunity for Pertussis is mathematically even possible, given the diseases R(0) would require 94-96% immunization, and all unimmunized persons be uniformly distributed throughout the population.

I read the one about Shawn Kemp co-hosting a party because Thunder missed the playoffs.

None of these "various articles in the Seattle Times" supported your position.

Link one supporting article from the Seattle Times which is a post-analysis of the job market following the minimum wage being raised. I'll waive the numbers on the small businesses which have gone out of business over the minimum wage being raised (for now).

Yeah, the NYC version of this app just blinks FUCK OFF on the screen and plays a Bronx cheer.

The AFL-CIO was a major component of the New Deal Coalition that dominated politics into the mid-1960s.[8] Although it has lost membership, finances, and political clout since 1970, it remains a major player on the liberal side of national politics, with a great deal of activity in lobbying, coordinating with other liberal organizations, fund-raising, and recruiting and supporting candidates around the country.

If you haven't heard anything from them it's because you haven't been listening. They are very active on workers rights.

And there's two sides to the coin. Why should you benefit from their hard work campaigning for higher wages without contributing to the fight? Read up a little bit about the history of the American Work pre-Unions. What was the phrase? Nasty, brutish and short.

Sure we grok it. Do you not grok the idea that if you are not pulling numbers out of your ass, then you probably have the reference material right in front of you, and can therefore paste the information a hell of a lot easier than having us go looking for supporting numbers for your made up statistics for you?

Stupidest zombie movie ever. Seriously.

So.... #NotAllUnions ???

Citation needed. Preferably one with a post-analysis of the Seattle job market, with another graph showing impact (if any) on number of small businesses in the immediate area.

It's a grading system, based on three grading criteria, each of which can score up to an 'A':

Game success among critics/reviewers
"Innovative gameplay"
Financial success

Given the major reviewers comments on "Borderlands: The Pre-Sequel", the fact that it's "Yet Another First Person Shoot", and the company being unable to afford to remain in business, rather than "AAA Studio", it'd probably be better to describe 2K as a "BCF" studio.

They definitely get an F on their financial success, and YAFPS is hardly innovative game play, so they get a grudging C there, and the reviews at the top sites give them generally in the neighborhood of an 80% approval by reviewers (only GameStop rates them higher than 80%), so that's a B.

I really hate that people hype studios themselves as "AAA", as if that means they are going to get A's in all three categories, just because of who they are, or because of the marketing hype behind their games contributing to a likelihood of good reviews or financial success.

In reality, you are only as good as your last release in all three categories. 2K blew it in at least two of the categories, and turned in B grade work in the third, so it's no surprise they failed.

They were actually unhappy with Pearson.

The article makes this very clear. It wouldn't matter if the Pearson Curriculum were on an iPad or an Android device, they'd still be unhappy with it. The attachment of Apple to the story is a means of click-baiting it. Pretty clear in the quotes from their attorney:

L.A. schools Supt. Ramon C. Cortines “made the decision that he wanted to put them on notice, Pearson in particular, that he’s dissatisfied with their product,” said David Holmquist, general counsel for the nation’s second-largest school system. He said millions of dollars could be at stake.

In a letter sent Monday to Apple, Holmquist wrote that it “will not accept or compensate Apple for new deliveries of [Pearson] curriculum.” Nor does the district want to pay for further services related to the Pearson product.

Pretty ringing condemnation of Pearson's products by the school district; note that the Pearson products might not eve be at fault, given that the complaint was that it didn't help with the standardized testing scores.

>>If it is correct to limit labor union's ability to spend due to unequal protection, then how can corporations not similarly be limited?>Personally, I think all labor union and corporate campaign contributions should be eliminated. "We the people..."

"So when you join a labor union or incorporate your business, you think you're surrendering your rights to free speech? "

Absolutely not. Where did I give you that impression?
Talk all you want.
Campaign contributions, on the other hand, are not speech.
They are the mechanism for election, and should be controlled to ensure that We the People are in charge.

"What if you incorporate a landscaping business in your town, and some local politician says he's going to make it the focus of his term as mayor to prohibit all gasoline powered landscaping equipment in town. Do you really think that the would-be mayor should be allowed to say what he thinks about your business practices and equipment, but you and your fellow landscapers in town shouldn't be allowed to run an ad saying, "Don't elect Mr. Smith, because all of your local landscaping companies will end up out of business." Why do you think such political speech should be banned, but only when it's the business owners who speak it?"

The business owners are still individuals and can participate in this debate to their hearts content, as can ( should ) all citizens ( citizens == non corporate, real people with the right to vote ).
Why should business owners be able to effectively ban non-business owner from political speech by drowning them out with money?

"Simulations of fusion are only 50 years away!"