5 ms·

If Congress can be bought, why not expose the people doing the buying, and their lobbyists, and exert pressure on them instead of writing or calling Congressme

by lkx 15y ago

If Congress can be bought, why not expose the people doing the buying, and their lobbyists, and exert pressure on them instead of writing or calling Congressmen who don't care?

eftpotrm 15y ago
They wouldn't be trying to buy this sort of legislation if they didn't think it was, in balance, in their commercial interests. They've likely already modelled the effect of any consumer backlash in their analysis, so why would they listen to you? They were expecting to lose you anyway.
- lkx 15y ago
  By "people" I refer to the human beings who run the corporations, not the corporations themselves. I doubt very much that executives behind these moves at corporations have taken being held responsible personally into account. In my opinion, they should be held accountable personally, not only by shareholders, but by society at large. I believe that corporate executives act with impunity because society, as a whole, has come to consider corporations as people (beyond the legal fiction of Personhood). Executives hide behind this "personhood". Why should we stop at: "BigCo is doing something evil", when the individual board members and executives of BigCo are ultimately the ones who make the decisions? Zuckerberg, and in an earlier era, Gates, are examples of two CEOs who are held personally liable in the court of public opinion for the misdeeds of their corporations. In my opinion, more of that would be healthy.
danssig 15y ago
Because the bribery is done completely in the open and legally. You get campaign contributions or a cushy contractor position worth millions to you personally. It's not illegal so "exposing" the companies engaging in this behavior won't have much effect on them.
- lkx 15y ago
  Not the companies. Their corporate officers. A few pickets outside a (morally) corrupt CEOs home, or his country club might make him more careful about future business decisions. As it stands corporations are a useful shield for the sometimes reprehensible actions of the human beings who run them.
rhizome 15y ago
Since bribes, as in payment for specific acts, has been illegal in the US for some time now, each donor can hide behind the excuse that they only donated to the candidate, but they don't support them for this particular issue.

by lkx 15y ago

If Congress can be bought, why not expose the people doing the buying, and their lobbyists, and exert pressure on them instead of writing or calling Congressmen who don't care?

eftpotrm 15y ago

They wouldn't be trying to buy this sort of legislation if they didn't think it was, in balance, in their commercial interests. They've likely already modelled the effect of any consumer backlash in their analysis, so why would they listen to you? They were expecting to lose you anyway.

lkx 15y ago
By "people" I refer to the human beings who run the corporations, not the corporations themselves. I doubt very much that executives behind these moves at corporations have taken being held responsible personally into account. In my opinion, they should be held accountable personally, not only by shareholders, but by society at large. I believe that corporate executives act with impunity because society, as a whole, has come to consider corporations as people (beyond the legal fiction of Personhood). Executives hide behind this "personhood". Why should we stop at: "BigCo is doing something evil", when the individual board members and executives of BigCo are ultimately the ones who make the decisions? Zuckerberg, and in an earlier era, Gates, are examples of two CEOs who are held personally liable in the court of public opinion for the misdeeds of their corporations. In my opinion, more of that would be healthy.

danssig 15y ago

Because the bribery is done completely in the open and legally. You get campaign contributions or a cushy contractor position worth millions to you personally. It's not illegal so "exposing" the companies engaging in this behavior won't have much effect on them.

lkx 15y ago
Not the companies. Their corporate officers. A few pickets outside a (morally) corrupt CEOs home, or his country club might make him more careful about future business decisions. As it stands corporations are a useful shield for the sometimes reprehensible actions of the human beings who run them.

rhizome 15y ago

Since bribes, as in payment for specific acts, has been illegal in the US for some time now, each donor can hide behind the excuse that they only donated to the candidate, but they don't support them for this particular issue.