2 ms·

Maybe, but are we going to do away with PACs, which are essentially corporations, also? If people want their influence to be heard and heeded they will just fi

by jakehow 17y ago

Maybe, but are we going to do away with PACs, which are essentially corporations, also? If people want their influence to be heard and heeded they will just find some other place to put that pressure. My point is that this in and of itself is not what actually causes corruption and abuse, there is also the ability of the state to grant privilege and reward arbitrarily in response to pressure.

yannis 17y ago
I agree that this in itself not the cause of corruption, but there is also one other difference. Suppose that a Public Company put to shareholders a motion to support a Presidential candidate's fund and 51% vote for it would you consider it right then for the Corporation to go ahead and donate the money?
- jakehow 17y ago
  Shares in a corporation are a contract(read: agreement) that you have with that corporation and the other shareholders. If you think that donating to a campaign or cause is always wrong, you can seek out companies that do not do that, and only agree to invest in those types of companies. If you think that there should be a rule that any political donations must be approved by a shareholder vote then you can seek out corporations that have that in their shareholder agreement (not that I think that there are currently any in existence). There are many corporations out there that have a specific 'agenda' that they support with their profits. Some of them are totally ridiculous (see the Trijicon story: http://defensetech.org/2010/01/21/update-on-bible-scopes-us-will-remove-as-well/ http://defensetech.org/2010/01/21/update-on-bible-scopes-us-...), and some of them are worthwhile(Aid to Haiti), but this is my subjective judgement of those causes, and anyone else might view them differently.
  - yannis 17y ago
    The implications are much wider how about someone invested via mutual funds or a retirement annuity, this choice might not be possible. It is fine for a Corporation to have a specific agenda even the Vatican owns businesses but supporting Politicians via this avenue just doesn't sound right.
    - jakehow 17y ago
      Mutual funds are no different. You contract/agree with a fund that represents your investment criteria and they invest on your behalf and charge you a fee. There are already 'values' driven mutual funds in existence today. ( ex: 'green' mutual funds) I agree that politics is different, but the different part is not that people are influencing its outcome. The different part is that the people that rise to the top control the institutions of the state.

by jakehow 17y ago

yannis 17y ago

I agree that this in itself not the cause of corruption, but there is also one other difference. Suppose that a Public Company put to shareholders a motion to support a Presidential candidate's fund and 51% vote for it would you consider it right then for the Corporation to go ahead and donate the money?

jakehow 17y ago
Shares in a corporation are a contract(read: agreement) that you have with that corporation and the other shareholders. If you think that donating to a campaign or cause is always wrong, you can seek out companies that do not do that, and only agree to invest in those types of companies. If you think that there should be a rule that any political donations must be approved by a shareholder vote then you can seek out corporations that have that in their shareholder agreement (not that I think that there are currently any in existence). There are many corporations out there that have a specific 'agenda' that they support with their profits. Some of them are totally ridiculous (see the Trijicon story: http://defensetech.org/2010/01/21/update-on-bible-scopes-us-will-remove-as-well/ http://defensetech.org/2010/01/21/update-on-bible-scopes-us-...), and some of them are worthwhile(Aid to Haiti), but this is my subjective judgement of those causes, and anyone else might view them differently.
- yannis 17y ago
  The implications are much wider how about someone invested via mutual funds or a retirement annuity, this choice might not be possible. It is fine for a Corporation to have a specific agenda even the Vatican owns businesses but supporting Politicians via this avenue just doesn't sound right.
  - jakehow 17y ago
    Mutual funds are no different. You contract/agree with a fund that represents your investment criteria and they invest on your behalf and charge you a fee. There are already 'values' driven mutual funds in existence today. ( ex: 'green' mutual funds) I agree that politics is different, but the different part is not that people are influencing its outcome. The different part is that the people that rise to the top control the institutions of the state.