I wasn't asserting a value judgement on the viewpoint, only noting the seeming popularity of it. Yes, narrowly construed, corporate officers have obligations t

I wasn't asserting a value judgement on the viewpoint, only noting the seeming popularity of it. Yes, narrowly construed, corporate officers have obligations that look a something like that. I look at it as an activity that takes place in the broader world of policy making. Personally, I think to judge the cost or benefit of corporate lobbying as a driver of policy requires substantially more investigation than simply whether or not they are properly representing their stakeholders. "For all lawful purposes" covers a range of behaviours that many folks have a problem with, those employees and investors also have voices, votes and the ability to spend money whether or not the corporation does, the supposed alignment of interested between corporate officers, investors and employees really isn't there in many cases of corporate lobbying (unions exist for a reason, for instance, and so to shareholder lawsuits), game theoretic concerns about what it does to democracy, and on and on. None of which really matters to the analysis that AirBnB really comes off like a nest of entitled jackasses with this ad and turned off a lot of people who may well have been otherwise sympathetic to the notion that this proposition has some really bad provisions. If I were a stakeholder, I'd likely be thinking that the officers did me a disservice by spending a ton of money to convince lots of people vote against my hypothetical interests.