Corporate Democracy
Many have objected to the corporate influence in our democracy, arguing that corporations are able to use their access to huge amounts of money to get the legislation they want. The argument is that it's not one person one vote, but one dollar one vote, with the richest deciding what regulations and laws will exist.
In Georgia, a bill had been passed by both houses supposedly protecting religious freedom. What it amounted to was a protection against individuals and businesses that wanted to deny homosexuals certain services. For example, if a baker didn't want to bake a wedding cake with two grooms on it, then the law would protect their right from a lawsuit or other sanction for that discrimination.
Opponents of the bill objected vigorously and took their argument to corporate America, arguing that they'd boycott Georgia businesses and they'd damage the Georgia economy if the bill were passed. A number of large businesses did indicate that they might consider relocation if Georgia passed the law. Georgia is overwhelmingly Republican in both the House and Senate and the law passed easily (it was just short a super-majority, which would have been able to over-ride the Governor's veto). The Governor (also a Republican) vetoed the Bill, no doubt due to the corporate influence.
Are those opposed to corporate power's influence in our democracy opposed to the process that resulted in the veto of this bill? Or does the fact that the preferred result was achieved negate the corrupt process that brought about the result? Or, do you think that the process was not corrupt at all and that corporations play an important role in our democratic process by using their influence to get results?
In Georgia, a bill had been passed by both houses supposedly protecting religious freedom. What it amounted to was a protection against individuals and businesses that wanted to deny homosexuals certain services. For example, if a baker didn't want to bake a wedding cake with two grooms on it, then the law would protect their right from a lawsuit or other sanction for that discrimination.
Opponents of the bill objected vigorously and took their argument to corporate America, arguing that they'd boycott Georgia businesses and they'd damage the Georgia economy if the bill were passed. A number of large businesses did indicate that they might consider relocation if Georgia passed the law. Georgia is overwhelmingly Republican in both the House and Senate and the law passed easily (it was just short a super-majority, which would have been able to over-ride the Governor's veto). The Governor (also a Republican) vetoed the Bill, no doubt due to the corporate influence.
Are those opposed to corporate power's influence in our democracy opposed to the process that resulted in the veto of this bill? Or does the fact that the preferred result was achieved negate the corrupt process that brought about the result? Or, do you think that the process was not corrupt at all and that corporations play an important role in our democratic process by using their influence to get results?
Comments (81)
That doesn't exactly address your point, but I think that it speaks to the spirit of it.
I'm weary of all power structures ripe for abuse, and corruption. Every political system works perfectly when they're just and benevolent, but not so much when they're mercurial and corrupt.
Private powers with little oversight, transparency, regulation, or accountability are particularly worrisome, and as a matter of principle, I think that precautions and restraints need to be imposed -- but I have no objections when it works out in the favor of justness, and humanitarianism.
Yes, no, no. Good result, not so good method.
It's always possible for some corporate committee or executive (whoever is able to speak on behalf of the company) to be on the side of the angels. Agents of Apple, Corp., for instance, have been on the 'correct side' of rights issues a number of times.
But still, I'm not happy about corporate executives leveraging the wealth of their corporations (the employment it provides, contributions to state economies, etc.) to influence politics. The president of Apple has every right as a citizen to speak on issues. The head of the Southern Baptist Convention, or the president of Emory University has a right to speak as a citizen about whatever they please. I would prefer to see both of these men speak as the individuals they are, rather than leverage the prestige of the organizations they head up.
It's one thing for Frank Page, citizen, to say "I am against gay rights." It is (IMHO) improper for him to say "As president of the Southern Baptist Convention, I am against (or for) gay rights."
The CEO of Target, Corp. (or someone able to make the decision) decided to make a corporate contribution to the anti-gay marriage campaign in Minnesota a while back. The donation garnered a lot of local negative publicity for Target. It would have been as inappropriate for Target to have donated the money, instead, to the pro-gay marriage campaign. Target employees (including the CEO) could make their own donations to whoever they pleased.
"The Corporation" isn't a citizen, isn't a voter, isn't a person, and doesn't have opinions or positions on political issues.
It seems to me that public businesses are bound to serve any customer who walks in the door and makes a reasonable request. If I asked a bakery to sell me a large pie with four and twenty live blackbirds contained within the delicious flaky crust, they might reasonably refuse -- no blackbirds in stock, no knowledge about how big a pie to make, no knowledge of how to actually bake a blackbird pie without ending up with dead blackbirds, and so on. Fair enough. Maybe the bakery down the street has the recipe.
On the other hand, they wouldn't be entitled (as a public enterprise) to refuse to write "Happy Gay Pride" on a sheet cake -- a task which they are more than adequately capable of performing. Just because they don't like gay pride, or the Irish, or railroad buffs, or whatever cake decoration is needed, is no basis for the bakery to refuse service.
Right?
The role these corporations and others played in the legislative arena can be compared to that of lawyers in the judicial arena. Just as lawyers provide the trier of fact (judge or jury) with points of view on the legal issues pertaining to a case, so do lobbyists provide local, state, and federal policymakers with points of view on public policy issues. Corporate lobbying is a big powerful business in Washington, the fact that in Georgia, these corporations decided to do it without employ of a professional lobbyist does not change the fact that it is a legal form of address.
Capital is the dynamic binding agent that holds our market system together, and keeps it going. The threat of its removal is sufficient to change public policy.
It ought to be interesting to see how North Carolina, with its 'Toilet Law' makes out. Jim Crow redux. North Carolina's attorney general said Tuesday that he would refuse to defend the state's new bathroom law in court.
It's a complicated enough area that I'm not going to try to answer it definitively, and it's also a bit unsettled, and I don't do discrimination law. But, what the hell, I'll take a stab at it:
An employee can sue an employer for discrimination for certain specified reasons. I know this isn't exactly the cake baking question, but you can see the enumerated sorts of things you're not permitted to discriminate against: (http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/)
You will note that they relate to age, gender, race, disability, and the other things you'd expect. You won't see "sexual orientation" on that list, although I think it is accepted that that falls under sex discrimination generally. http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2015/07/16/sexual_orientation_discrimination_at_work_eeoc_says_it_s_illegal_under_federal.html
Such is federal law. The state of Colorado though has a law that prohibits "public accommodations" from discriminating on the basis of sexual preference, so if you are a bakery that sells to the general public, you have to bake a cake and put two grooms on it if requested. http://aclu-co.org/court-rules-bakery-illegally-discriminated-against-gay-couple/ I suspect that Georgia was trying to make sure it never became Colorado, so it tried to pass its recent law, although it vetoed.
If a baker refused to bake a cake that said "I love Reading Railroad," he could not be sued for discriminating against railroad enthusiasts because they are not a recognized protected class. It's generally accepted railroad people are stupid anyway. I mean, really, get a car.
Requiring public businesses to cater to all comers is something that arose out of necessity in the old South, where African Americans literally could not find places to lodge, to eat, or to repair their vehicles if they broke down along the way. While I recognize that improper discrimination is a wrong regardless of who it is committed against on a theoretical level, I see the situation between not being able to find lodging very different than a gay couple who insists that a resistant baker bake them a cake. The gay couple could easily find someone more receptive and get their cake (and from someone who's not going to half bake it).
My point is that I think that all this legislation and litigation is to make a declaration of equality as opposed to really helping an injured party. Not that declarations aren't important, but it should be kept in perspective.
Does it really just come down to making bakers bake cakes that conform to societal standards and nothing else and there really isn't some deeper underlying principle?
Also, the way the laws have been created is to distinguish various classes that are often discriminated against (sex, race, age, etc) and then they are protected regardless of whether they are in the minority. That is, it is just as illegal to fire someone who is black because they are black as it is to do the same to someone who is white. The same applies to firing the young versus the old, Christians versus Muslims, or men versus women. We protect classifications of people, without regard to whether they are in the majority or minority. There are no protections afforded to Canadians however, so stay up in your frozen wasteland.
Point was that it's not fairsies -- and results matter, so I'd have no objection to anything when it works, but don't trust plenty of things to reliably work.
And Canada pwns, and you know it.
"The Law" one hopes, "is not an ass"ª and will not stoop to negotiating frosting. There are more substantive issues in public accommodation.
A hotel-owning klansman white supremacist, or a restaurant-owning lesbian separatist (maybe they could go into business together) deal in materially significant goods (shelter and food) and services. Same for real estate brokers, plumbers, bankers, carpenters, doctors, lawyers, and septic tank clearing services--all materially significant services for which equal public accommodation is important -- both constitutionally, but also for purposes of public safety, health, and prosperity.
ª1838, Charles Dickens, Oliver Twist, ch. 61: "If the law supposes that," said Mr. Bumble, squeezing his hat emphatically in both hands, "the law is a ass..."
Since you insist upon drawing a literal distinction between corporations and people, where corporations (as opposed to people) should be prohibited from engaging in the democratic process, it seems rather obvious that corporations cannot participate in the democratic process because they are purely legal constructs. It is only the people who can speak and vote and urge the Governor to act one way or the other.
So, the corporation did not tell the Governor to do anything. It was the many people who would be adversely affected as well as the people who ran the corporations that did the speaking. How is that not democratic?
I wasn't aware, and I don't really know how UK law works. If the baker had refused to write "Deny gay marriage" would he have been guilty of discriminating against Christians?
Because laws are passed by representatives who are democratically elected by the people, not by corporations. If the latter call up the governor of a state, himself democratically elected, and yes indeed tell him what to do (for this is what "corporate influence" entails), that is not democracy. Representatives are beholden to their constituency's interests as a whole, not exclusively to a tiny minority whose only distinguishing feature is how much wealth they control and money they have.
You can't just declare that politics is what you think it ought to be. A representative is beholden to whomever keeps him in office, and under no actual situation will that be that no one person has no more influence than another. It's just the case that politicians are going to listen to community leaders and other influential people than they are to average folks.
Regarding a politician listening to a major business owner, it's nonsense to say that owner doesn't significantly affect the community's interest as a whole. He can pull up stakes and leave, and while you think that's not fair that he have more say than you or I, that's super until he leaves and you realize how much more he contributed to the community than you or I.
This is not what I'm doing. I'm simply describing to you how the US government and democracy in general function.
Quoting Hanover
First, it's not only unfair, but undemocratic, which has consistently been my point. Second, if he does leave, then he doesn't deserve any tax breaks, subsidies, or other forms of corporate welfare, since he's reaping all the benefits of living in the US while working to undermine them by destroying his fellow citizens' livelihood.
So, just to make sure I'm getting this right, am I opposed to the corporatocratic shenanigans even though they led to a good outcome?
Ahem...well FIRST OF ALL I'd like to say that WE'RE ALL HYPOCRITES at some points in life...
No, in all seriousness I think that corporations should play a certain role in the democratic process. Corporations are owned by citizens, and the citizens who run them should be able to utilize them. There's gotta be a balance.
It's tough to say this but I don't think I would consider this event "corporate bullying". More like "social responsibility". But I suppose it does depend on what side you are on.
The UK law is summarised here: https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/discrimination/about-discrimination/equality-act-2010-discrimination-and-your-rights/
It protects you against religious discrimination as well as discrimination on various other counts (nine in all) including sexual orientation.
The odd thing about the case of the Belfast bakers is that they claimed that they were happy to serve anyone, regardless of sexual orientation; but they just wouldn't put a pro-gay marriage slogan on the cake and have it known that it was baked by them.
Lots of old legislation was codified together in 2010, so naturally there are various areas where it remains to be clarified by judges how they will interpret it.
We shouldn't pander to major business owners just because they threaten to throw their toys out of the pram. I agree that it's a problem, but one difference between left and right on this issue is the kind of solution endorsed. The right tend to offer a carrot, e.g. by cutting corporation tax and "red tape" (even though, oddly enough, corporation tax has been lower in the past, and this didn't cause an exodus like the scaremongers suggested; and even though cutting "red tape" might lead, for example, to greater exploitation and the unfair diminishment of workers rights), whereas the left tend to go for the stick, e.g. by doing the opposite of what I just mentioned. If there was sufficient unity, then the stick approach would be best, in my opinion. That way, it sets things right [I]and[/I] effectively rules out the alternative of the grass being greener on the other side.
No, because in the UK and Ireland most Christians probably support gay marriage. But in any case, if the baker can be compelled to write "Allow gay marriage" it should be that he can be compelled to write "Deny gay marriage" or anything else that doesn't fall under the bounds of hate speech. He can't be compelled to write "The Holocaust never happened" or "Fuck the Queen", for example, but other than that his personal opinions shouldn't be allowed to infringe on the rights of customers to a reasonable level of service. In just the same way you should be allowed to expel someone from a pub or restaurant for inciting hatred but not for being on either side of a contentious public debate like gay marriage or abortion etc. The tricky part then becomes where exactly to draw the line.
Where would he go? What would he do? My solution would cut out the alternative of the grass being greener on the other side. The grass would be just as green here as elsewhere. He'd have two options: he could either maintain his business fairly, by according with the law, and if he's fortunate, he could reap the reward; or he could close down his business, or carry on and refuse to cooperate with the law - the long arm of which would eventually tap him on the shoulder.
That's how it should be. Cooperate or face the consequences.
Quoting Hanover
That's the way it is now. Doesn't mean that that's the way that it should or has to be. Things can change, and change for the better. Just look at what we've done already. No more nonsense about there being a divine right of kings, to give but one important historical example.
Quoting Hanover
Yes, but what's overall best for his district might not be reflected in the views of the majority within his district or in the views of major business owners within his district. It might in fact be reflected in the views of the minority within his district or in the views of those outside of his district. Democracy with some enlightened laws is most fair.
Quoting Hanover
No, it wouldn't. Not necessarily. The business could be maintained, but ownership could transfer and/or the power structure could be altered, and wealth could be distributed more fairly. This way, more people profit. That wouldn't be getting rid of the goose or it's golden egg; that would be more like taking the golden egg, melting it down, splitting it up fairly, then handing out the reformed gold amongst those who deserve it.
Broccoli.
for your system to work, and the outcome will follow the predictable pattern of all other Marxist countries.
It's not coincidental that the existence of free markets coincides with free societies generally.
Sometimes it is, as in Franco's Spain, Pinochet's Chile (a military dictatorship in which neoliberalism was first tried out in earnest), and China today. Now don't try and "no true Scotsman" me. As it happens I would also argue that Hitler's Germany was, in practice, compatible with capitalism; the Nazis did not follow through on the "left" fascist anti-capitalist rhetoric. But I'll let that one slide.
And in the UK, liberalization of the economy (financialization) lived alongside social authoritarianism, under Thatcher's rule (it's no coincidence she was a fan of Pinochet). This is the distinction that "free-market" enthusiasts fail to make.
Probably not, but I think the two are ultimately independent. Liberal freedoms were surely crucial to the rise of capitalism, but it could be the case that it no longer needs them, as Zizek has pointed out. In any case, in the mid-nineteenth century, European governments were very slow to grant full democratic freedoms even while capitalist industrialization was well under way. Unlike 1789, it was not primarily the bourgeoisie that continued to press on for more freedom. It was the socialists (those were the days).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutions_of_1848
There can be checks and balances in place to better prevent the corruption of those empowered by the state: transparency, accountability, consequences for actions. Also, I don't have in mind Stalinism, as I'm guessing you do. There are plenty of alternatives. The masses wouldn't be oppressed by the state through such policies. It would be those unscrupulous fat cats who would bear the brunt of it, and rightly so. Perhaps they should've thought twice about evading tax or not paying their workers a fair wage or recklessly gambling away our money and lumping us with the debt or any of the other many abuses of power. I don't think that the state can do no wrong; quite the contrary. But the system in place allows it to. Fundamental systematic change is required.
What we need is a way to defuse the power of money on economic decision-making, releasing the economic factors from the narrow channels of money flow that keep enriching the economically high and mighty. This needs to be effected without blocking individual’s ability to acquire wealth, which motivates economic production. It is best to achieve this economic power diffusion with least interference from other entities, like continued manipulation by government.
This can be achieved by limiting the number of persons any business can employ. In conjunction with this there has to be a limit to how much interest an individual can own in how many businesses.
Defused special interest lobbying would lighten its grip on legislation, thereby making the governments more honest.
It sets a norm of you would allow the discrimination and as such could result in old-South discrimination against blacks but then against gays. So pretty trivial on the specific level but if you abstract away from it and consider the possibility that gays could be discriminated everywhere all the time, it's clear why you need to nip this in the butt as quickly as possible.
As to the law. It fails the universality (pace H. L. A. Hart) test in that it clearly singles out a specific group. It's bad law in that respect even if procedures were followed.
I've made the following point before, a point that seems to be mostly ignored. A baker declining to bake a cake representing something he disagrees with is not an example of "wanting to deny homosexuals certain services", if by that you mean a denial of service because they are homosexual. That is, it is not in itself an example of discrimination against the customer on the basis of sexuality. Many such bakers would most likely bake non-gay cakes for people whom they knew to be gay, and if so they are not guilty of discriminating against gay people.
Edit: just realized this is an old thread in which I already made the point :D
It's the slippery slope argument, although the slope is leaning in the opposite direction in reality. That is, we've gotten ourselves into a situation where we we're requiring the general public to respect whatever it is that two consenting adults agree to, even if what that is happens to be repugnant to someone.
To me, it's a pragmatic issue at some level, and until gays are actually discriminated against in a way that limits their ability to live their life as they want to live it (as opposed to having to endure the insults of those who don't share their viewpoint), then there's no practical reason for the law. The trend has been favorable for the gay community and pushing the matter on those holdouts who find homosexuality disagreeable seems far more designed to make a political point than to make anyone's life easier.
And that raises the question of what a gay wedding cake is. Does it have to have gay symbols on it, or is it adequate the baker knows that it will be used in a gay wedding ceremony? Are you just saying the baker has the right to refuse to put a gay couple figurine on the cake, but he must otherwise bake a generic cake for our gay couple (and then they can do the honors of placing the figurine on top?)
It just seems that if the baker can refuse to bake cakes for all gay couples he thinks will be used to celebrate their marriage, he could push the argument further and say that he won't bake anything that will be used within the relationship that might normalize what he finds abhorrent behavior. My point being that your distinction might may no practical difference and gays could be denied all baked goods (such homophobia among bakers, who'd've thunk?).
Some gay people are against gay marriage, and feel strongly about it. Imagine a gay baker being compelled to bake a cake that promotes gay marriage.
I don't see any contradiction generally entailed by one's participation in a society, institution, or process of which one is critical and which one also acts or would act to reform. For instance, you can provide clear justifications for voting in an election even while "being opposed" to details of the structure of the electoral system -- say, the fact that there's no paper trail left by some new voting machines, perhaps even the one you're using to vote.
Likewise, you can oppose the current role of corporations in politics, for instance in connection with the deregulation of campaign finance and with ideology that "money is speech", while continuing to exert influence on corporations as a means to reform the status quo in any respect.
Moreover, a call to reform the role of corporations in politics is not the same as a call to abolish corporations. Even if members of corporations had no direct influence on government, corporate profits would be of interest to governments, for instance because of the tax revenues and jobs associated with them. Thus even if such conditions obtained, a nationwide threat to boycott a corporation could put pressure on a state or local government.
Accordingly, the tactic you've singled out here is morally compatible with an interest in reforming the role of corporations in politics, and it's utility is to some extent independent of the current degree or state of corporate influence in politics.
Actually, if you put corporation in a different perspective, they can have positions and be relevant in the democratic process.
It is true, that corporations are by any means nothing else but legal entities. But citizenship is a legal concept as well. Both are mainly distinguished by their (let's say) range of autonomy. For a private individual citizenship is a concept to grant him rights of freedom, trade, speech, etc. A bunch of complicated concepts that i will subsume as private-autonomy. Government, respectively office bearer, on the other hand have no such autonomy and are (in theory at least) confined to do as the corpus of citizen told them to. When acting as an office bearer you have no private-autonomy, as a principle.
Corporations on the other hand are neither nor. They cannot be perceived as official, because they are not elected, not part of the concept of citizenship. Therefore, as most people would argue, they cannot have a say in political business. And that of course holds true for all small and medium businesses. We don't want the baker to tell the governor what to do. But that doesn't necessarily holds true for big corporations. Because those are, as Peter Ulrich would put it, quasi-official/ virtually official. Simply because the main corpus of citizens directly work for them, or interact with them, more directly than the elected officials. Not only that, for most citizens the well-being of big corporations is more important than most anything, because their livelihood depends on them.
Long story short, one cannot deny the influence of corporations. Not because they are evil entities, that only look after themselvs. But because they shape citizenship. A good solution, can not be found in questions like whether they should or shouldn't expose their political influence, but whether or not it should be an integral part of any corporation to expose their political stance up front.
That a person is dependent on a corporation should not be confused with an alignment of interests. In general they are not.
It's not so much reforming the role of corporations as it is the continued use of corporations for personal benefit. If a corporation uses its profits to interfere with climate change regulation or if it uses it to protect gay rights, it's all the same thing: the use of corporate power in the democratic setting to affect policy. When the corporation does what you want it to, you can't simply refer to it as reform, and when it doesn't, you refer to it as improper interference.
I'd also say part of your post is a straw man. Few are actually calling for the elimination of the corporation, but many are calling for limiting the influence of corporations. It would seem that if corporations should have limited access to the democratic process, that should be the objection universally and not just when that influence makes you unhappy.
And this issue can be illustrated in a variety of ways, from corporate divestiture in unpopular countries to the creation of PACs to fund liberal (or conservative ) causes.
Can't we just substitute the word "corporation" here with "employer." I don't really see why it matters how they've structured their business.
Quoting Benkei
Thats not what i intended at all. I do not want to give them access, because I assume, they already have it - see OP's bakers story. I just would suggest, to make this influence public and there accessable for citizens. At the moment corporate influence is mostly discussed in back door meetings. There is my problem. I did not mean to grant them right, quite the contrary, by making their political stances public any employee, or goverment offical can at follow their reasoning.
Quoting Benkei
Explain, why you cannot assume, that this is actually the case? Many of friends are entrepeneurs in IT and finance. And over the last couple of years our discussion base shifted, from idealists, who wanted to make the world a better place, to more practical points of interests.
Anything that has any relation to you alters you. Your perception and your deliberation are in constant change, even of you do not notice it. So why should the relation between corporation-employees and corporation-goverment be any different?
Quoting Benkei
Which means, the alternative is to deny them rights and control them totally? If so only government offcials (since they cant be private obv. and not corporate) can influence corporation? Thats sounds familiar. I am considering myself a marxist as well. But in all honesty we are not ready for something like that. And of course, why should they be less corrupted, than corporate leader now?
Coporate is afraid to make their political stances public, because it would most likely invoke public outrage and complications. But as long es they are influencial, they should make their alignment known, like ther balance sheets. And should be hold responsable for that.
PS:
pls note, i don't know if corporate have to make their balances public, in every country. In my country they have to. And will face dire consequences if they are late, tempered with in form.
Until the revolution and we get rid of them, corporations should stick to business: buying, selling, renting, exchanging, digging, refining, farming, building, packaging, wrecking -- whatever it is that the corporation does.
The managers of the corporation being citizens (if they are citizens) are entitled to engage in politics, and they will represent their interests which probably will align pretty closely with the corporation. Stockholders who are citizens are liable to do the same thing -- represent their own interests which will probably align with their investments. If corporate managers or stockholders choose to act as citizens contrary to the interests of their corporations, that's their prerogative.
But... as legal entities, corporations should not be counted as persons or citizens. IBM, Apple, Ford, Target, Walmart, and Dairy Queen are 'boxes' where humans come to work, produce, consume, or manage. There is no reason to count a 'box' as anything more than a structure. We don't count the little Dairy Queen box as anything more than a place, a thing. It sells ice-cream. It has no role beyond that. The corporation is nothing more than that either. Apple and Exxon are just big boxes.
All of the state's creations -- corporations, non-profits, armies, port authorities, sanitation districts, park boards, and so on -- are subsidiary to the state which defines the terms of their existence. The state, in turn, is a creation of citizens (at the time of the state's founding). The citizens have ultimate control over the state (ideally; they might not be able to exercise effective control practically).
I want to deny them access, period. Arthur D. Levinson is Chairman of Apple, Inc. Mr. Levinson can spend his own money and go to Washington, DC or Sacramento, CA and chew on whose ever ear he wants to. So can you, assuming you can afford to do it. If you can't, then you don't get to chew on Paul Ryan's ear. (Ryan is a rep. from Wisconsin and is Speaker of the House.) It has to be HIS money, though, not Apple's. Apple isn't entitled to a hearing, but Levinson is. That Mr. Levinson or Bill Gates has a huge amount of money in his pocket is well known, and buying political influence is another problem -- separate from corporate issues.
Going to your state capitol and nagging or ragging on your local rep or senator is much more affordable, generally. State and local issues are often as important as national issues. Unfortunately, big money is even bigger in state capitol hallways than it is in Washington, where politicians dream in trillions of dollars, not millions, which is what local politicians dream of.
Accidental? Maybe 'accident' isn't quite the right term. The state created the template of corporations and upon formal application and payment of fees, grants them a license to do business--as a stock-issuing corporation, for instance.
Public for-profit corporations in the US have to issue regular financial reports. Non-profit corporations are not obligated to do so, and privately owned companies (even very big ones) don't have to, either. For instance #1 Cargill (Agribusiness), #2 Koch Industries (Conglomerate), and #3 Mars (Food Processing--candy, especially) are multi-billion dollar companies that do not have to tell you just how good their year was, unless they feel like it.
At least, that's my understanding. Hanover???
See The Medieval World View, William R Cook
Ah, ok that explains it. In Germany (if I am informed correctly) there is no distinction between corporation and privatly owned companies. At least not when it comes to making their yearly balance public. Every company has to do it, and their balance sheet will (in a simplyfied form) be made accissable by the tax authorities. That is why i can easly assume corporations as quasi-official legal entities.
Quoting Bitter Crank
But why should they be trated as "boxes"? Are those entities not capable of change and reason? They shape our lifes as well, as we shapes theirs. You said yourself, that they are not accidental.
Of course there is a disticition to be made. Every citizen regardless of wealth of status of employment can be politically active orQuoting Bitter Crank :D But you said yourself, that there is a big if, an antecedens, if you will. You need money! Because of that big if, isn't it more sensible to assume, that even so status and wealth of a person are part of his private-autonomy, a wealthy citizen can influence political officals more, than a poorer person would be able to? Wouldn't it therefore be safer to assume, that any person of considerable wealth and his political interests are of public relevance? And are therefore to be treated accordingly? The radius of impact a rich person has is far beyond any middleclass citizen can reach.
If wealth can influence politics (and we can assume it does), than wealth should be held responsible for its public stances. First then, one would need to decriminalise influences of corporations on politics, simply by creating an official channel. So they can express themselvs without fear of losing their face. And be held responsible if they don't act on their word.
An example: Mr. Levingston raises funds for an anti-child-labour campaign in the US(the fundraiser...not the child-labour). He therefore has proclaimed his political sance in that issue. But if there was evidence, that his company actions contradict his stance, the corporation should be held responsible. That way the priciple-agent-problem would be solved in a way, that it would shift legitimacy of action. Any action would then (to some extent) be legitimated not only by stake/stockholdes, but by the public.
At the moment corporations influence politics in backroom meetings, because it would invoke public outrage, they would lose coustomers and probably be in the center of a major shitstorm. By making their influence official, they could act as before, but the public would have chance to be involved.
PS:
Most of those arguments are stolen directly from Peter Ulrich's Integrative Economic Ethics
The rhetoric employed in talking about organizations of any kind can become confusing if one isn't careful. So a couple of decades ago, some people were tossing around the buzz word "a learning organization"--an organization that carefully learns from its experience. Some people started to take this notion almost literally. Well, an organization can learn nothing because it is an abstraction. The employees of an organization can learn or forget, but the organization can not do anything of the sort.
We, persons and people, can affect each others' lives for better or for worse. We can organize ourselves into organizations -- like a Benedictine monastery, the Social Democrat Party, Volkswagen, the secret police (KGB, FBI, Stasi, whatever...) or the Strudel & Streusel Society. But these organizations are nothing more than individual persons carrying out tasks and policies that other people have devised.
Why is all of this an issue? Because... In the United States as a matter of interpretation of the word "person" in the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, U.S. courts have extended certain constitutional protections to corporations. Some of us are adamantly opposed to this extension of rights to corporations.
Quoting Ralph Luther
Again, "corporations" do not influence politics, or anything else. The board of directors, the operating management, and employees of a corporation influence politics. If one has enough money, or power, one can buy access to backroom meetings. This is, has been, and probably will be 'Standard Operating Procedures' for the foreseeable future.
("having a lot of money" per se is not sufficient to get into a back room meeting. One has to have used some of that money to benefit other people in the backroom meeting, or people they think are important. Tom Steyer, a Democrat and a wealthy hedge fund manager in San Francisco, donated $66 million dollars (!) to Political Action Committees. $66,000,000 is enough to get one into several back room meetings with Hillary herself. I donated $100 to Bernie Sanders. That much got me onto Bernie's mass mailing list, along with 30 million other people.)
Quoting Ralph Luther
The best way for the ordinary working class/middle class public to be involved in politics is through large scale organization of themselves. As Lenin observed, "quantity has a quality all its own". That's why labor union membership and participation, low-level political organizing, civic engagement, and political engagement are critical to ordinary people. In the absence of effective working class/middle class political organizing, We, The People, are getting screwed left and right.
Never heard of it.
Of course I don't mean that Organizations are literally capable of reason. The structure of any organisation is an abstraction. But you can't deny that people working in an organization are affected by it. And we can assume that they influence each other in many ways, some of wich are hard to percieve. For example being part of an organization can challenge your believes and maybe enlighten your believes. Make you a better, or worse person. If an organizaion consist of humans and depend on their deliberation and decision making, and if an engagement in an organization can change those delibarations and decision capability, they(the organizations) can change. They are not "boxes".
Quoting Bitter Crank
But just because we can differentiate personal and professional believes, it does not entail, that they are always separated. A backroom meeting wouldn't be set up by rich person, just for fun, but most likely to further the interest of his corporation. All i am proposing is just, if the professional and personal political interest of a person if significant impact are aligning, it should be made official. The only way to ensure that, would be to held not himself responsible, because that would be to much to ask from any human, but his corporation.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Exaclty, and as long as corporations are holding most our wealth and are in charge of the production of things we depend on, they have to be held socially responsible. Can't hold anyone responsible, without making their actions known, can you?
Since we are basically reasoning about buisiness ethics, and the legitimacy of political influence, I can definitely recommend you: Peter Ulrich. Sadly you wont find him in the english wikipedia yet. I should translate the german article. :)
Please don't. I have a long list of reading I am trying to get through before I drop dead.
Quoting Ralph Luther
I know you don't mean that. And yes, people in an organization are most definitely affected by the character of interactions established by other people in the organization. Corporations, organizations, are only the abstract devices by which actual people work together for large-scale ends.
When it comes to ethics, there is only the ethics of how people behave toward each other, directly or indirectly. In some organizations, people behave rather ruthlessly and amorally toward each other. These tend to be ghastly workplaces for everyone except sharks, vultures, and jackets. In other organizations people behave rather nicely toward each other, assisting rather than shafting one another. I much prefer the second kind.
Enlightenment comes (if it comes) by way of other people. Libraries aren't valuable cultural assets because they contain megatons of paper or are well organized. They are valuable cultural assets because some people's thoughts can be read on the page and absorbed, and may produce enlightenment. Most often they will just put people to sleep. Similarly, it is other people in an organization (like Waste Management, Inc.) who say and do things that are enlightening--on those rare occasions when people say enlightening things.
Quoting Ralph Luther
To a large extent, corporations don't hold most of our wealth. It is the stockholders -- the people who own the corporation -- that hold much of our wealth. As we discussed earlier, some corporations are private, and whoever owns that corporation also owns the wealth--like the Cargils, for example. The wealthiest 1% of the American population are so rich because they own a large share of corporations.
I suspect a lot of the conversation we are having is about defining words like corporations. I don't know... I would be surprised if we differ that much about what constitutes ethical action.
That's right, but... maybe the law is an ass.
Corporations can be a means to at partially or totally shield individuals from the consequences of their acts, and others' acts on their behalf. Take the Bhopal, India gas poisoning:
The gas killed thousands and injured scores of thousands of people:
"Accidents happen" but accidents are more likely when maintenance is minimal, when safety systems are turned off, and when large quantities of highly toxic stuff is stored and/or manufactured in densely populated areas.
Union Carbide Corporation's stockholders (and financial beneficiaries) were not held liable, and for all practical purposes, neither were the various employees of the corporation who had a duty to maintain the plant (like managers who approve or deny work orders in corporate headquarters).
Quoting Mongrel
Morality is involved regardless of what Ciceronianus says.
Cic was just saying that people misunderstand if they think the law is about morality. The concept of a corporation is legal technology... that was my point.
Really? Amazing.
The law is often not a matter of morality. For instance, laws specifying how real estate property is transferred from one person to another, or rules defining what "jam" is, as opposed to a "spread" aren't loaded with a lot of morality. But the Nuremberg laws which the Nazi's passed to strip Jews of property, access to public places, careers--life itself--can't be described as mere "legal technology". The intent, texts, and implementation of the law was entirely immoral. So also were American laws segregating whites and blacks. So are a lot of laws.
I mentioned earlier that the concept was a significant factor in the emergence of European nation states. If you do mean to say that the concept of the corporation is immoral, you're indicting the whole global shebang.
I would counter that it's not corporations. They just act in their own interests. It's the lack of global law that allows them to exploit us munchkins.
BC can speak for himself, but I took him to be saying that corporate law was amoral, in that it deals with certain transactional issues which don't really touch upon morality (unlike, say, criminal law).
The consequences can be immoral. A law that shields individuals for their immoral acts under the cloak of a corporation, for instance, could be immoral.
A law (or interpretation of a law) which grants to corporations personhood, a right to free speech, and so forth, could be immoral. For instance, consider the case of Citizens United:
The law that says a corporation is an individual is absurd, and may (will probably) have moral consequences. Unions aren't individuals either, of course.
quote="Mongrel;61390"]I mentioned earlier that the concept was a significant factor in the emergence of European nation states. If you do mean to say that the concept of the corporation is immoral, you're indicting the whole global shebang.[/quote]
I am not saying that the corporation is inherently immoral or inherently good. It depends... (as questions of morality always do).
The first corporations, and the first stock issued, and the first stock holders are one thing. Today's corporations valued in the hundreds of billions of dollars, are something else. They have interlocking directorates (they share strategic board of director members), they often have near monopolies on essential products, they have enormous economic, social, and political clout, and they employ million of people. A pea and a watermelons are both fruits, but there is a hell of a lot of difference between the two. Ditto for the first and the latest corporations.
I would counter that it's not corporations. They just act in their own interests. It's the lack of global law that allows them to exploit us munchkins.[/quote]
Exploiting us munchkins is in the best interests of corporations. Making a profit (generally by exploiting workers) is their raison d'être.
If the concept of "corporation", allows for corporations to exist in an immoral way, then it follows that the concept of "corporation" is an immoral concept.
I'm not a lawyer. I just know some historians say the root of the concept is exactly that: a corporation is a group that is treated as an individual under the law.
Quoting Bitter Crank
For the fun of it, let's consider what we know about a totally free market. I think we'd agree that's a fair description of the global economy.
Mongrel and Bittercrank are two companies in direct competition providing the global market with windmill parts.
About 15% of Mongrel's parts are made by pink-faced hippies in Oregon and everybody knows about that because Mongrel advertises the hell out of it. The rest of her parts are manufactured in countries that have no child labor laws and she does work those little munchkins to the bone.
Bittercrank has plunged his flag deep into the higher moral ground by refusing to employ any children and holding to (pre-Trump) OSHA and EPA standards even in countries where he doesn't have to. He's a really moral corporation. He even cares about his CO2 footprint. Unfortunately Mongrel wiped the pavement with him in the market and he went out of business (even though his parts were higher in quality.)
Mongrel smiles her little wicked witch smile to observe that countries around the world are jumping at the chance to have her come in and provide a little food and shelter for their munchkins. If she accidently kills a few thousand of them.. oops.
It's just survival of the fittest. Could the environment change to favor a more moral corporation (like poor Bittercrank)? Of course. Look at the mechanics of the advent of child labor laws in the US and you see what's required. Centralized authority; a global government.
What are the chances of that? With the binding power of a new global religion, I could see it. Maybe if aliens invaded. Otherwise.. I doubt it. What do you think?
I'm willing to entertain the notion that the concept of the "corporation" is immoral if it shields its owners, office holders and management from the law. Takata airbags, for instance, were not as safe as advertised, and it may be that this was known for quite some time by various corporations. in the case of VW, diesel pollution control equipment was deliberately made deceptive and dysfunctional. The corporation's treasuries are being depleted by fines, (some -- not a lot proportionate to their profitability) but I suspect that few of the management who aided and abetted VW's fraud, and none of the stockholders who profited by the fraud, will be punished.
I agree that corporate law is basically amoral. It's aim is to create a stable environment for business, right?
I'd agree to no such malarky.
Mongrel Enterprises, Inc. makes her contaminating windmills by not merely exploiting labor, but by exploiting the most vulnerable labor in the most degraded economic settings. She externalizes the environmental costs by flushing all of the toxic wastes from the factory into the Long Dong River, thus fucking over her unfortunate employees a second time around. The various toxic fumes which outgas from the plastics and glues used in her repellant product are not even pushed out with a fan. She just let's the miasma build up in the plant. The kiddies are dead meat anyway. (What does Madam Mongrel care? She wouldn't think of ever actually walking through this toxic shit hole.)
There are other reasons why Mongrel Enterprises is doing well. She located her malignant plants in a country that granted favorable trade deals. This SE Asian Tiger won the race to the bottom, taking away the crown of filth from Bangladesh. Not only that, Mongrel Enterprises' Country of Origin is run by a grotesque conservative party that is virulently anti-working class, anti-union, and (when you get right down to it) anti-human, who grants very favorable tax treatment to companies that assist them in their War on the Working Class.
True enough, Kranking Wind wasn't able to compete with Mongrel Enterprises criminal operations in the US market. Instead, he relocated the company to the European Union where his fine environmental and labor record led to his being showered by laurel crowns and contracts for windmills all over the globe.
In the end he died happy with a halo around his head. He went to heaven (even though he was a socialist atheist) and Mongrel went to hell (even though she was a capitalist evangelical).
There's no such thing as an amoral law. If the law is designed to "create" some sort of environment, with disregard for morality, it is immoral. Having disregard for moral principles is not a case of being amoral, it is a case of bring immoral.
I'm pretty sure I'm saying what I intend to say but might be a translation thing, so let my try to explain. It's the underlying relationships between people that gives the corporation its identity and structure, without them there would be no corporation. As such we should be concerned with the actual relations and not the abstraction. The political power of the corporation is vested in the corporate leadership, whereas it derives that power from the economic efforts of all the people in its structure. It's a predominantly undemocratic system in that the shareholders decide on the corporate leadership who in turn have a vested interest in maximising shareholder value, that is, short term profit, whereas the power is derived from an unheard mass of people.
Now, if we then look into the history of the corporation, it becomes even more interesting. The corporation originally was awarded a charter "by the people" to build or pursue something of social value and in return they were granted limited liability. There was no right to profit for the shareholders as the shareholders invested because of the secondary effects of what the corporation did. For instance, a bridge might reward people on both sides with increased commerce, the increased commerce could be the effective return and as such a reason for them to in vest in Bridge inc.
Quoting Ralph Luther
See above.
Quoting Ralph Luther
This seems quite obvious. The interests of shareholders (who elect corporate leadership) are not aligned with wage-income employees. The directors will pursue policies that benefit the bottom line (or they'll get sacked) and short-term profitability to ensure shareholder value. An employee, especially a dependent one, is not benefitted from short-term profitability but long term stability. Profits are important, and lower wages a good way of increasing them. Not for the benefit of the employee. The same for health and safety standards. And that's just internal examples.
If we look externally, then we see that profits are increased if corporate taxes are lowered and dividend taxes are lowered. But taxes are used to sustain a public infrastructure that corporations use as much, if not more, than citizens in their private time. That public infrastructure will therefore necessarily deteriorate or regular people will have to pay the difference in other taxes (VAT and income tax). Again, the employee is worse off.
The few times that interests do align it's usually for the wrong reason: e.g. not because it's the right thing to do but because it would increase profits.
So yes, socially it is unacceptable that corporations have acquired many rights that have translated into impressive political influence and we should be dismantling that. Precisely because the corporation is accidental, e.g. there's no reason the workers couldn't be working for a totally different company making totally different things, we shouldn't accord it with so much power where that power is by and large wielded for a very limited goal with basically no ethical dimension whatsoever. It is no surprise that politics often degenerates into "what is good for the economy?" instead of "what is good for society?" So a particular measure will increase wages, or increase GDP, or increase purchasing power parity for people or increase the employment rate but these are economic results of a decision that is far more politically intricate.
GDP growth as a result of military spending, is that what we want? Yes or no? Why?
A higher minimum wage to guarantee a minimum living standard? Or should we provide benefits to guarantee a minimum living standards? Or something else? Why?
PPP is an average, who should really benefit from the increase in purchasing power? The rich, the poor or the middle class? Everybody equally? Proportionally? Why?
These are all non-economic questions and are about what type of society people want to live in. Pursuing economic abstractions undermines the necessary political discourse needed. Economic theory enables us to weigh economic outcomes of our choices but, "whatever makes the most money" is not a sensible answer to an ethical question but precisely the one corporations will give you.
Nature has no regard for moral principles. Is it immoral?
Interesting viewpoint.