> Behalf Of Kristin A. Ruhle
> A corporation is legally a person (at least in the USA). A
corporation is
> also a legal artifact/entity that exists APART from its owners. It
becomes
> a species unto iself, all powerful and self perpetuating (if it
doesn't
> make money, it won't continue to exist. Maybe the profit imperative
is
> like our genetic imperative to reproduce?) It can become almost
godlike
> and arbitrary esp if it is trans-national and no government can
control
> it. OK, maybe it's a "wealth creating machine." Most of the wealth
tends
> to go to a few (the major shareholders), and in any case calliing it
a
> legal person is incredibly stupid. Corporations can't *directly*
> contribute to political campaigns, but devices like political action
> committees let them get around that. In any case (a) no US
politician can
> get nominated, let alone elected, without corporate money. Only
> corporations and a few rich individuals can afford to contribute
enough to
> a campaign to really matter. Sure, they'll take your $1 donation,
but how
> much will that help? Campaign financing undermines
> democracy. (B) economic power exceeds that of any government, so it
may
> not matter how democratic (or not) you are in the long run.
>
> Kristin
Kristin, where do you think the word corporation comes from? It
_means_ artificial person. However, if a corporation is _not_ an
artificial person, then it becomes useless. Being an artificial
person gives a corporation a group of rights, all of which are vital
to its functioning in an economy. The most important of these is the
right to be sued. Anything that cannot be sued cannot be held to a
contract, thus the right to be sued is the most vital single part of a
corporation's existence. It also gives it certain limited rights to
speech and expression - note that "economic speech" is (or used to be,
at any rate, and still is under some conservative jurisprudence) given
a lower level of protection under the First Amendment than political
speech.
However - whatever gives you the idea that most of the wealth produced
by a corporation goes to the shareholders? I want stock in that one.
Every good produced by a corporation is wealth. Everything you buy
from one increases _your_ wealth. You'd rather have the good than the
money you spend on it - if you didn't, you wouldn't buy it in the
first place. Every transaction in an economy _increases_ the net
wealth of both parties. It's not a zero-sum thing. Now, it is true
that the wealthy in the US have a very large share of total assets.
That is, of course, partly inevitable - if you don't have a
disproportionate amount of wealth, you aren't rich, after all. We can
argue about whether the level of this in the United States is
unhealthy or not. But given that the standard of living in the United
States is barely approached by, say, 80-90% of the world's population,
and every other country that has anyone who is even close lives under
a system roughly similar to ours, there might, perhaps, be some
evidence suggesting that economies dominated by corporations do fairly
well for all citizens, not just the rich.
As for only corporations and individuals contributing enough to
matter - really? OK - there are _280 million people_ in the United
States. If all of them gave $10, that would be significantly more,
IIRC, than was spent in the 2000 election. You're right - only
corporations and rich individuals can give $10,000 at a stroke. What,
though, do you think PACs do? They are ways to join many different
small interests into one large interest powerful enough to be heard in
the debate. You believe something, and I believe something. So we
volunteer, or give money, or whatever. If a lot of people agree with
you, then that PAC becomes powerful - like the NRA, the AARP, or the
Sierra Club. If lots of people don't agree with you - then, well,
this is a democracy, so you aren't _supposed_ to have power. So go
convince people that you're right - don't complain about the fact that
you aren't getting your way in public policy. In fact, it doesn't
take very much money to be a major player in politics. Money, like
everything else, suffers from diminishing returns fairly quickly. $10
million in campaign funds to disperse would an organization one of the
most important actors in American politics. I believe that the only
non-party organization in the US with that much to throw around is the
AFL-CIO. Maybe also the AARP, but I don't think so. Any organization
that _can't_ raise funds at an at least significant level in a country
as wealthy and large as ours has no significant public support
anyways.
And, of course, all of this ignores the most powerful force in any
democracy - votes. Elections aren't decided by who has the largest
bankroll. The AARP is powerful because millions of seniors vote the
way it tells them to - the NRA because millions of gun owners do the
same. That is _far_ more important than any amount of money that
either spends. Corporations cannot, in general, vote. You can. If
lots of people agree with you, then no amount of campaign donations is
as important as your votes.
So, even supposing you want to eliminate corporations from
participation in politics - why just corporations? What makes them
inferior in their rights to other organizations - like, say, labor
unions and Greenpeace? Because you don't agree with them isn't a good
enough answer, I'm afraid. Saying that people who don't agree with
you shouldn't be allowed to be part of the political process - well,
Ralph Nader actually believes that, but it isn't what we traditionally
call free or democratic or any of those other good things. Let me be
absolutely clear on this. I want you to be part of the political
process. I _also_ want to be part of the political process. When you
are allowed to give money and I can't - then I'm not as free as you
are, and the only reason for that is that I don't agree with those
views that you find acceptable.
Kristin, let me ask you this - in the last 30 years, American air and
water quality has improved by orders of magnitude. The _Bush_
Administration, as a matter of fact, passed some of the most
far-reaching environmental legislation in American history - far more
important than any passed by Clinton. If economic power is as
malevolent and strong as you claim that it is, how did any of this
happen? Why are fuel economy standards vastly higher than they were a
generation ago? Why is air quality better? Why is water quality
better? Why are carcinogens so closely monitored? Why have CFCs been
essentially eliminated from the global economy, to the extent that the
ozone hole problem has essentially been solved? Note that the United
States has often been far in advance of most European countries on
environmental issues ranging from whale protection to the removal of
leaded gasoline, and _every_ capitalist country has been far in
advance of every non-capitalist country on the same. I really don't
see how you can ignore all of these things and just assert that the
only thing that matters in the United States is the money donated by
corporate interests.
********************Gautam "Ulysses" Mukunda**********************
* Harvard College Class of '01 *He either fears his fate too much*
* www.fas.harvard.edu/~mukunda * Or his deserts are small, *
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] *Who dares not put it to the touch*
* "Freedom is not Free" * To win or lose it all. *
******************************************************************
