And Pokalsky says a public campaign finance system is no guarantee that New York's long
standing ethics issues will be cured.
Not exact matches
Unfortunately freedom of speech is contingent to how much money you have given that the media is itself a business that has to make profits as well, so a «lobbyist» like this comes to this program without any
ethics, without any remorse but with a lot of money as well to openly acknowledge that: yes, we put money in this governor's elections, we are expecting he pay us back and will
stand on our side of the equation, and yes, we have collected (very fast) the private necessary money to run a public relations campaign (of lies if necessary) to guarantee that our privileges are well kept; and he finds a free
stand to speak out freely and without appropriate response As far as Liz, I'm not sure if it is only a being naïve
issue.
Zimet did attack Cahill's
stand on sales - tax policy, but on other
issues, including school aid, women's reproductive rights,
ethics and legislative misfeasance, gay rights, local hospitals and campaign finance reform, there wasn't much difference between these two liberal Democrats.
Since the mid-1970s, the CSFR and NCLS have focused on many
issues on which AAAS has taken
stands through resolutions, such as those concerning science and intellectual freedom, science and
ethics, and science and human rights.
And they must be addressed, because if not, many of the arguments upon which UPL and lawyer
ethics issues stand in other circumstances may lose viability by analogy.