[Hermann the Cherusker]

I'm guessing that since you did not get too specific with your "connect the dots" scenario that you want us to believe that you've found a smoking gun of some sorts? That because this contractor contributed to the campaign that was in favor of continuing to build more light rail, that somehow this gave them some kind of advantage?

I've heard that Parsons Transportation Group won a $100 million contract on East Side Access after they gave something like $141,000 to the re-elect Pataki campaign in 1998. Their competitor gave $2000. Everyone is free to draw their own conclusions.

[jettester]

You are right - everyone is entitled to draw their own conclusions. I for one would be interested in pursuing whether Parsons filled out all of the correct paperwork for their "contributions" they made as you stated. My point is that companies do have an interest in helping to defeat objections that stand in the way of conducting business, as long as it is legal and aboveboard. That is what capitalism is all about.

Most companies I've worked for answer to a Board who answers to the stockholders. Read any of the SEC filings by major companies who might be in your 401 portfolio and you'll find moneis that have been spent through PACs, legal challenges and campaign support. It is required to be reported and most companies do that. It is not against the law; in fact our government encourages it by designing systems that allow it to take place and be reported.