Many have argu…okay, no, really it was just Mark. But I do believe that he represents many non-voters who don’t vote because they believe that large corporations buy politicians and that therefore there is no difference between different candidates. The specific statement was – why would JP Morgan invest in Tester if they didn’t think they’d be getting something back?
I don’t see why that logic is any less relevant when applied to, say, the League of Conservation Voters, Tester’s actual largest donor? They aren’t stupid. They probably don’t agree with everything Tester does (like, supporting Keystone XL). Nonetheless, they recognize he is a better bet than Denny Rehberg. Or his second largest contributor, Thornton and Naumes, a law firm that makes a living getting suing extractive corporations that hurt people (you know, the sort of corporations that might contribute to Denny Rehberg).
In short? I’m not an expert, nor even particularly well educated, on domestic politics. But the folks making these ‘investment’ decisions probably are. Perhaps there’s a reason to expect that Tester will continue to be the better candidate for both the environment and for the people.