tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-414921743762949137.post8499087562067398200..comments2023-06-14T04:29:52.030-07:00Comments on Because I don't spend enough time on the Internet: Things that would help our democracyWith Respect to Xhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12438173273088548740noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-414921743762949137.post-39024812026751917532008-07-22T07:44:00.000-07:002008-07-22T07:44:00.000-07:00OK, well, I can see where you're coming from here....OK, well, I can see where you're coming from here. Let the shareholders put their dividends where their votes are.<BR/><BR/>The problem is corporations are decidedly entrenched in the political process, whether we let them donate or not. <BR/><BR/>Corporations spend billions on law cases, trying to establish legal precedents that can have wide ranging consequences on our society. If Bill Gates can spend his money on lawyers like this, why shouldn't Microsoft?<BR/><BR/>The Business Council of Australia bankrolled an independent (although nonetheless partisan) advertising campaign trying to keep the Howard Government in power for the sake of preserving WorkChoices at the last federal election (this ties in to the point I made in the original post about non-donation donations...) If the Trade Unions had a right to run a campaign, surely the BCA did too?<BR/><BR/>Corporations routinely lobby directly on legislation and trade deals that effect their industry. I think theirs is a voice that should be heard on such issues (of course not to the exclusion of others.) <BR/><BR/>Corporations have an economic and legal existence, and thus economic and legal interests; by extension, they have a political existence and political interests. Let them use their economic power to promote political ends if thats what's in the corporations best interest, so long as they don't engage in corrupt conduct.<BR/><BR/>Really, this whole argument comes down to the problematic nature of allowing these entities called Corporations to exist (not that we really have any choice anymore - that cat is well and truly out of the bag. Overall, I think the experiment has proven to be more positive than negative.)<BR/><BR/>Do they or should they have rights, and/or responsibilities, above and beyond those of their individual members? These are deep and difficult questions, that can equally apply to other human associations that extend beyond the individual, from Families to Charities to Religions to Ethnic Groups to Sports Teams to Governments (one reason I can't give credence to radical Capitalists and Communists - they both advocate putting dangerously unrestricted power in the hands of a small group, and debate the semantic point of whether to call the group the State or the Board of Directors.) Perhaps I will come back to some of these issue in another blog post.With Respect to Xhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12438173273088548740noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-414921743762949137.post-38366201793228628712008-07-22T01:19:00.000-07:002008-07-22T01:19:00.000-07:00It's more that I think allowing them to donate and...It's more that I think allowing them to donate and not vote is half-arsed. If we think they belong in the political process (i.e. their interests are important independent of their members), we should work out a formal representative scheme rather than having them attempt to buy influence/ideological direction.James Haggertyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03317425738874886656noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-414921743762949137.post-34059858126716496352008-07-21T07:23:00.000-07:002008-07-21T07:23:00.000-07:00@alex: Yes, corporations conceivably could still g...@alex: Yes, corporations conceivably could still give politicians underhand donations. Just like I can in theory currently bribe the Minister for Planning to give me a multi-million dollar development approval. We have reasonably good (certainly not perfect) mechanisms in our current system to deal with this kind of outright, illegal corruption (which is what non-anonymous donations would amount to under my scheme.)<BR/>I just picked this particular blog because, well, I already had a Google account, it seemed easy... no anonymous comments is kinda annoying. Is it a setting I can change, or is it an inbuilt policy of blogger? I'll see if I can fiddle with it...<BR/><BR/>@james - I certainly would allow corporations to continue to donate; in general, I'm a pretty pro-corporation guy to be honest. Corporations pay taxes, have laws they must obey, employ people, may be parties in a lawsuit, etc. Ultimately, corporations just represent the collective (economic) interest of a bunch of people. Corporate greed and immorality can be detrimental to society, to be sure, but ultimately, you're just talking about human greed and immorality, that happens to be abstracted away to a collective entity (similar for example to a Government.) I see no need to place extra restrictions on the way corporations spend their money above and beyond those applying to ordinary people, unless a compelling case to do so exists.With Respect to Xhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12438173273088548740noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-414921743762949137.post-47148501157900772132008-07-21T03:50:00.000-07:002008-07-21T03:50:00.000-07:00"I meant any donation made by a private entity, wh..."I meant any donation made by a private entity, whether an individual or a corporation."<BR/><BR/>Err, I think I understood that. I was just suggesting that I would not even allow corporations to donate anonymously... because I'm mean, yeah.James Haggertyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03317425738874886656noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-414921743762949137.post-73599037753646544162008-07-21T02:40:00.000-07:002008-07-21T02:40:00.000-07:00This blog doesn't allow anonymous comments, so MPs...This blog doesn't allow anonymous comments, so MPs can't let you know they've read it :)Alexeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10232609099336072702noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-414921743762949137.post-57357137156871391742008-07-21T02:37:00.000-07:002008-07-21T02:37:00.000-07:00Do you think corporations would still find underha...Do you think corporations would still find underhanded ways to fund candidates? At least now the donations are public knowledge.Alexeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10232609099336072702noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-414921743762949137.post-53502958236021356112008-07-19T05:59:00.000-07:002008-07-19T05:59:00.000-07:00Sorry, the term private donation was unnecessarily...Sorry, the term private donation was unnecessarily confusing. I meant any donation made by a private entity, whether an individual or a corporation. Plain old 'donation' would have gotten my message across more clearly I suppose.With Respect to Xhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12438173273088548740noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-414921743762949137.post-63159333088980772272008-07-19T01:16:00.000-07:002008-07-19T01:16:00.000-07:00Oh, and by the way, you've been syndicated:http://...Oh, and by the way, you've been syndicated:<BR/><BR/>http://www.usydgroup.blogsite.org/<BR/><BR/>;-)James Haggertyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03317425738874886656noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-414921743762949137.post-71035596781933274682008-07-19T01:15:00.000-07:002008-07-19T01:15:00.000-07:00Interesting... I'd outlaw any corporate donation w...Interesting... I'd outlaw any corporate donation while you're at it - if we're not giving them the vote, they should have no political power except through people interested in their fate.James Haggertyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03317425738874886656noreply@blogger.com