Quote:
Originally Posted by SebC
If that concerned businessman actually makes his case with the public, or supports a candidate who is doing so, that's democratic. If he's doing his lobbying at private meetings, for things that candidates aren't willing to openly put into their platforms, that's anti-democratic. So I disagree. I much prefer apathy to actively circumventing the democratic process.
And no, there's no hyperbole. Sprawl does hurt our finances and it's bad for the environment. Backroom lobbying (and flat-out lying to the public, with regards to the "development freeze") is bad for democracy. Wenzel and his ilk are putting their own self-interest above those things. Which is certainly within his rights, but it's also not a "good" way to behave. It is, at best, morally neutral and I personally do not like what he has done.
|
It is hyperbole. Funding candidates you prefer, who are better for your personal business interests isn't an affront to democracy in any sense. Like I said before on this board, if the NDP were in favour of stock market abolition still (and they might still be), you can bet I would donate and fund candidates against them. If that somehow makes me a 'weasel' then so be it. I would work to protect my business interests and feel no shame about that.