Which way do the top MegaCompanies lean?

[MikeMike]

http://www.fastcompany.com/blog/cli...phic-day-which-mega-companies-lean-left-right

Interesting graphics (also a great website in general for us business ppl)

 

[Steeplerot]

Disney and Viacom Democratic? Sounds like someone trying to pass off the liberal media myth again. Disney and Viacom not as bad as Newscorp (fox), but damn, how far have we sunk?

 

[Deeko]

Well, some of that is also just indicative of where the companies are located. The Hollywood movie studios - California. The tech companies - California and Seattle.

The car company one surprises me though.

 

[wwswimming]

Republican ~= Democrat

( Republican approx. equals Democrat )

what's the ASCII symbol for approximately equals ?

anyway, it's like having 2 teams that are functionally identical, have minor cosmetic differences like different color uniforms, and go through the motions of having raving big fights when in fact they are completely in sync on most if the issues that affect our lives. i.e. they don't work for the people that elected them. Pelosi certainly doesn't, neither does Obama.

they work for the people that funded their campaigns, among other groups.

they are as bought and paid for as most Mexican politicians that are owned by drug cartels. although i think the Mexican politicians are a little more honest.

 

[wwswimming]

Republican ~= Democrat

( Republican approx. equals Democrat )

what's the ASCII symbol for approximately equals ?

anyway, it's like having 2 teams that are functionally identical, have minor cosmetic differences like different color uniforms, and go through the motions of having raving big fights when in fact they are completely in sync on most if the issues that affect our lives. i.e. they don't work for the people that elected them. Pelosi certainly doesn't, neither does Obama.

they work for the people that funded their campaigns, among other groups.

they are as bought and paid for as most Mexican politicians that are owned by drug cartels. although i think the Mexican politicians are a little more honest.

 

[werepossum]

Disney and Viacom Democratic? Sounds like someone trying to pass off the liberal media myth again. Disney and Viacom not as bad as Newscorp (fox), but damn, how far have we sunk?

Disney in particular is very liberal, and has been since the old man died. There is a huge gay contingent in animation in particular; a company has to be pretty liberal to retain its talent. That probably explains Viacom, NBC, etc. as their talent tends to be very liberal. Newscorp on the other hand is a niche (or more accurately several niches) within media as a whole and is consciously conservative as a business decision. FoxNews for example - had it started up as a typical liberal organization it would have had a greater pool of potential employees, but by moving to the right tapped into a market of right-of-center viewers (which turned out to be the majority of viewers, go figure.)

Companies, like individuals, tend to donate resources in line with their own perceived best interests. Big business wants out from under health care costs and thus leans heavily toward the Dems at the moment, as there is little chance of Republicans voting in single payer health care. WalMart on the other hand has comparatively low health care costs (non-union and huge employer of part-time people) and is probably the single most hated entity for Democratic politicians (arguably after Israel, the US military, and the USA itself) and therefore gives mostly to Republicans. Our federal government is so big and so pervasive that all major corporations must pay protection money to one or both sides in accordance with their own particular interests and fears (and of course according to which party appears to be ascending and thus the most dangerous.)

 

[Patranus]

I wonder if the Democrats returned all the money donated to them by Bernie Madoff...

 

[Ausm]

UPS Republican?? Maybe management but not the people who actually work.

 

[Ozoned]

http://www.fastcompany.com/blog/cli...phic-day-which-mega-companies-lean-left-right

Interesting graphics (also a great website in general for us business ppl)

Which way do the top MegaCompanies lean?

You mean like Comcast? The company that is getting ready to buy NBC.

I guess we will find out, wont we?

 

[IceBergSLiM]

They all lean Globalist.

 

[StageLeft]

I am not even American and find the adulterous orgies of companies in the brown hole of government offensive.

 

[Rainsford]

Disney in particular is very liberal, and has been since the old man died. There is a huge gay contingent in animation in particular; a company has to be pretty liberal to retain its talent. That probably explains Viacom, NBC, etc. as their talent tends to be very liberal. Newscorp on the other hand is a niche (or more accurately several niches) within media as a whole and is consciously conservative as a business decision. FoxNews for example - had it started up as a typical liberal organization it would have had a greater pool of potential employees, but by moving to the right tapped into a market of right-of-center viewers (which turned out to be the majority of viewers, go figure.)

Companies, like individuals, tend to donate resources in line with their own perceived best interests. Big business wants out from under health care costs and thus leans heavily toward the Dems at the moment, as there is little chance of Republicans voting in single payer health care. WalMart on the other hand has comparatively low health care costs (non-union and huge employer of part-time people) and is probably the single most hated entity for Democratic politicians (arguably after Israel, the US military, and the USA itself) and therefore gives mostly to Republicans. Our federal government is so big and so pervasive that all major corporations must pay protection money to one or both sides in accordance with their own particular interests and fears (and of course according to which party appears to be ascending and thus the most dangerous.)

I think you've got it backwards. The government is huge BECAUSE corporations pay a ton in donations to make sure the government is doing something in their favor. The government can have power that no amount of money can buy in the private sector, it's better for companies to have a big government that's on their side than a small government on no side.

 

[werepossum]

I think you've got it backwards. The government is huge BECAUSE corporations pay a ton in donations to make sure the government is doing something in their favor. The government can have power that no amount of money can buy in the private sector, it's better for companies to have a big government that's on their side than a small government on no side.

I started to disagree but you actually have a good point. Candidates that get large contributions have a better chance of being elected, all else being equal, and are then likely to make laws (and more commonly, amendments) to benefit their own benefactors to ensure that those donations continue. Unfortunately that isn't the only way corporations can influence a candidate or elected official; hiring family members and/or mistresses, donations to other groups or causes the politician supports, and steering business to a favored person or company are all everyday occurrences. Unfortunately when government is so big and powerful, there's no way to prevent people and corporations from attempting to buy favors or at least limit the damage government does upon them.

My preference would be the Fair Tax. Move all taxes to a retail-level federal sales tax (collected by the existing state agencies), constitutionally prohibit all taxes leveled on individual and corporate income, and companies become much more limited in the favors they can purchase. Prebate sales taxes at the poverty level to all legal households for the number of persons in each so that poor people pay no taxes whatsoever. Then American companies as a whole have an advantage (as foreign competitors pay exactly the same tax rate) and, just as importantly, everyone sees the exact tax rate and pays it on everything beyond their family's poverty level. Each person's tax rate would depend on how far above the poverty line they fall.

 

[Rainsford]

I started to disagree but you actually have a good point. Candidates that get large contributions have a better chance of being elected, all else being equal, and are then likely to make laws (and more commonly, amendments) to benefit their own benefactors to ensure that those donations continue. Unfortunately that isn't the only way corporations can influence a candidate or elected official; hiring family members and/or mistresses, donations to other groups or causes the politician supports, and steering business to a favored person or company are all everyday occurrences. Unfortunately when government is so big and powerful, there's no way to prevent people and corporations from attempting to buy favors or at least limit the damage government does upon them.

My preference would be the Fair Tax. Move all taxes to a retail-level federal sales tax (collected by the existing state agencies), constitutionally prohibit all taxes leveled on individual and corporate income, and companies become much more limited in the favors they can purchase. Prebate sales taxes at the poverty level to all legal households for the number of persons in each so that poor people pay no taxes whatsoever. Then American companies as a whole have an advantage (as foreign competitors pay exactly the same tax rate) and, just as importantly, everyone sees the exact tax rate and pays it on everything beyond their family's poverty level. Each person's tax rate would depend on how far above the poverty line they fall.

I don't see how changing the method of collection of taxes helps limit the influence people can have on the government. Politicians still need money to run for office, the more the better. And although your system might prohibit TAX related favors, it doesn't help with anything else (favorable zoning laws, environmental regulations, no-bid contracts, etc, etc).

I kind of like the "Fair Tax" idea, although I get the feeling that in actual implementation it would turn out to be brutally regressive, but I don't think it solves the corruption problem. Dramatically capping campaign donations (and/or campaign spending) would be more helpful, I think, as it limits the mechanism for buying politicians, and not just the motivation.

 

[StageLeft]

Lobbying needs to be taken away. I don't know why political donations cannot, by law, be anonymous (although this seems impossible if I think about it). Otherwise there is a tacit agreement that you are paying money for favor. That is the only way to interpret it. Politicians should determine their electorates' desires by polling or some kind of surveying system not getting under-table hand jobs by corporations' lobbyists.

 

[bamacre]

Which way do the top MegaCompanies lean?

Profits.

And that means buying up as many politicians as economically possible.

 

[MovingTarget]

It isn't a matter of leaning left or leaning right. The only real 'lean' companies have is inward. Walmart leans right not because it agrees idealogically with the Republican party - but because it feels that their positions support their bottom line. IIRC they do support and/or lobby Dem congressmen as well. The same goes with those who lean left - to whatever end of the spectrum they feel will support their bottom line. Morality and philosophy usually don't enter into the equation.

 

[Rainsford]

It isn't a matter of leaning left or leaning right. The only real 'lean' companies have is inward. Walmart leans right not because it agrees idealogically with the Republican party - but because it feels that their positions support their bottom line. IIRC they do support and/or lobby Dem congressmen as well. The same goes with those who lean left - to whatever end of the spectrum they feel will support their bottom line. Morality and philosophy usually don't enter into the equation.

I can't seem to find it again, but I saw a table a little while ago that listen defense contractor spending by political party each year for the past several years. What was interesting was that the percentage going to each party almost perfectly lined up with who controlled Congress at the time, and by how much. I suspect this effect is stronger in the defense industry, since their income is pretty much directly controlled by Congress...but I imagine a similar self-interest in in effect for other companies as well.

This is commonly brought up when people are pushing campaign finance reform, arguing that money clearly isn't speech when it changes so readily by who has the power. I can't say I disagree with that logic. Companies clearly are directly buying influence in our government.

 

[werepossum]

I don't see how changing the method of collection of taxes helps limit the influence people can have on the government. Politicians still need money to run for office, the more the better. And although your system might prohibit TAX related favors, it doesn't help with anything else (favorable zoning laws, environmental regulations, no-bid contracts, etc, etc).

I kind of like the "Fair Tax" idea, although I get the feeling that in actual implementation it would turn out to be brutally regressive, but I don't think it solves the corruption problem. Dramatically capping campaign donations (and/or campaign spending) would be more helpful, I think, as it limits the mechanism for buying politicians, and not just the motivation.

Exactly right, it would eliminate only politicians' ability to target one group for favor or punishment via tax law. As long as government stays so big and intrusive we can do little to limit the other favors politicians can sell, other than elect better politicians. No form of limiting campaign funding will stop the corruption as long as so much power is at stake. (Though it would be quite interesting to ban PACs, corporate donations, and bundling.) Unfortunately there's a limit even in a perfect world as to how much government we can do without. There are far too many of us to do away with environmental laws, zoning regulations and such, and the choices of firms for, say, putting out oil well fires or providing supplies to deployed armies is pretty limited.

The Fair Tax can still be played by setting the poverty level at which taxes are pre-bated. It's very progressive on the poorest (who would pay no federal taxes whatsoever) and becomes progressively less, um, progressive as you go up the income scale. On the wealth scale it's a different story; assuming a poverty level of $10,000 and a 15% rate a Kennedy for instance who earns $50,000 and spends $100,000 (due to withdrawals from trust funds) would pay $13,500, probably more than he pays now (depending on how the trust is structured), while someone earning $50,000 but spending $40,000 would pay $4,500. At 25% those numbers change to $22,500 & $7,500. (The actual rate proposed for the Fair Tax was carefully calculated to be revenue neutral to avoid favoring any one socioeconomic group, and the tax is pre-bated at the poverty level to avoid taxing the poor who can ill afford a flat, non-progressive tax of any form.) The main thing the poor lose is earned income credit, a form of welfare for the working poor. Those kinds of things would have to be moved to the state level, which I think is appropriate as income is pretty relative between states and especially between cities.

 

[BoberFett]

I think you've got it backwards. The government is huge BECAUSE corporations pay a ton in donations to make sure the government is doing something in their favor. The government can have power that no amount of money can buy in the private sector, it's better for companies to have a big government that's on their side than a small government on no side.

So then you're a libertarian? Funny, I thought you were a Democrat.

Anyone who believes that voters can control big government better than large corporations can is a fool. Libertarians (small L) understand this truth and it's the fundamental reason they reject big government. It will always answer to the biggest political donation. The only difference between Democrats and Republicans is from whom they receive donations.

 

[piasabird]

A lot of tech companies are headquartered in Virginia accross the river from DC. I just want to point that out.

 

[piasabird]

I might go with a flat tax, but there is nothing fair about tax or how the government wastes most of the money it receives. The solution is to send the federal government less money. The smaller amount of money the federal government has the less it will waste.

 

[cubby1223]

What?

Don't look into their analysis too much. Companies donate money to politicians who they believe will return them the greatest rewards. They do not donate money to politicians who are working towards what's best for the country.

It's like how Wal*Mart actually supports government mandating businesses buy health care insurance for employees... only because such mandates harm Target more than it harms themselves. They believe Wal*Mart comes out at a greater competitive advantage

 

[BrownTown]

Yeah, its pretty simple, companies support whoever will make them the most money (which is exactly what they SHOULD do in a capitalist system).

Its kind of link how the construction company I work for is called "evil" because they build things like coal plants and oil refineries whereas some other construction companies are called "good" for building wind farms or solar plants. I can guarentee you both companies have the exact same sort of management, they are building what makes them money, not what they think it the "moral" sort of buildings. The really funny thing is that the same people often bounce back and forth working for these different companies, so really its the same sort of people just doing whatever will give them the most money.

 

[Rainsford]

I might go with a flat tax, but there is nothing fair about tax or how the government wastes most of the money it receives. The solution is to send the federal government less money. The smaller amount of money the federal government has the less it will waste.

No, the right solutions is to make sure the federal government spends money WISELY. I'm not any more comfortable with the government wasting a small amount of money than I am with them wasting a large amount, and quite honestly I don't understand how their is an entire political philosophy founded on the distinction. I'd rather have the government spend $20 on something that's needed than spend $10 on something we don't need.