Well in theory corporate board members should vote in the best interests of their share holders. If they were doing that, and in doing so they donated money to a political party, I have no problem with that.
And you should have a serious problem with it.
The modern corporatocracy that is filled with massive institutions that frequently mock the power of 'government' the way symbolically skyscrapers dwarf the once largest national building the White House, is a situation the founding fathers didn't have much of a hint existing, the closest model being the monarchy and nobility, but measures against that only led to the same power being concentrated in this new form. I've little doubt they would agree it can be a threat that Democracy can hardly exist with.
Its agenda is very short-sighted and narrow, for its own gain. Now let's talk about that.
What's the common model in history? It's a powerful few and nearly everyone else barely making it, serving them either with labor or as military. Not much time for the American dream of a middle class in which the citizens actually count for something, where they can live a more fulfillng situation - each owning more resources to be comfortable and leaving the rich with less of a dominating share of the wealth.
That's just what the vote and democracy were created for, to give people more power than they normally had, in the form of a vote, with which the people could say 'no' to the powerful becoming masters.
You really need to think about this, Rainsford. What is the interest of corporations? It's in zero cost labor, for one thing. Now, zero cost isn't quite available - slaves need care, and the gilded age workers needed to eat. So the average American salary in 1900 (adjusted for inflation) was $10,000 in today's dollars. That's the corporate interest. The corporate interest isn't in any number of great things for the people of the country that the people like, but don't enrich corporations. It's not in the heatlchare of the elderly or sick.
Sure, it's cost effective to provide a level of healthcare for the productive, but those with expensive conditions are not valuable economically to treat - only those who value them as people. Not corporations.
Watch the movie "The Corporation" and recognize their interests. Watch country after country where the corporations were empowered and the people became virtually slaves. It's one of the forms of tyranny.
People take our middle class for granted, not realizing it's an exception in history created by our democracy working and overcoming the corporations that the current situation is taking away.
Just as corporations snuck in personhood to the law in 1886, in free trade agreements they are sneaking in anti-democratic measures that cripple democracies' ability to represent the people. In the name of 'protecting corporations from the excesses of democracies', laws are passed - bribed by the corporations to pass them - which let business sure for nation-bankrupting amounts of damages if nations dare to say their products are restrcited or banned for the good of the public. THis effectively prevents democracy from having much of any power over the corporations.
Maybe it's easier to understand the impact if I told you to pretend we were ending any vote by the people and only corporations would run things.
Can you imagine how bad that would be? Well, think about it, because those harms are largely the same as we're going to do by greatly diminshing the power of the people by giving the far wealthier corproations so much more power to dominate the system, with their massively resourced efforts oto identify their legislative goalds and even write the bills and just tell Congress to pass them, the way it works a lot NOW, BEFORE this.
Are you getting the point about why you should be very, very concerned about the corporations getting this increased role in our democracy, reducing citizens' power?
On the other hand, if they use their control of corporate assets to financially support a political candidate they personally like, with no expectation that supporting that person will help the company they control, they should at the very LEAST be removed from their position. In fact, if I was in charge, those kind of people would be thrown into prison for misusing share holder assets.
The problem isn't that corporations can donate to candidates, the problem is that corporate executives can treat company assets like their personal piggy bank when it suits them. But I think the solution is tighter restrictions (or oversight) on executive authority, not limiting campaign donations.
You're really missing it with this distinction between 'corporate interests' and 'officer's personal preferences'. It's the corporate interests you approve that are the worst threat.
Facebook
Twitter