Supe, consider your wish granted. Corporations cannot vote. Only individuals can.

I was apprently unclear. I wonder why in the world we permit any person or group to influence our political process other than citizens. Corporations have no business influencing government decisions. Or at least they SHOULD not have.

I think the first amendment protection of the right to petition the gubmint for a redress of grievances gives corps. the same right you have to write your Congressman and complain about how some bill before the House could cost you your job. Basically, companies pay protection money to keep the gubmint off their backs. I don't like it either but the gubmint is the problem here.

Unions cannot vote. They are independent legal and economic entities (unfortunately.....and this is one of the issues on which Fastpat and I agree), but not citizens. To vote, you have to be a human being. Why then, do we allow unions to become involved in politics?

Of course, some will say their interests and our interests are aligned. I say that I've got a bridge in London and some undeveloped land in Florida that would make great investment properties. And I say there are enough of us to speak for ourselves. Even if interests were aligned, union involvement in politics would then be superfluous.

;)

You know the answer to this. It is because unions represent a group of humans.

If we banded together to pool our influence and called ourselves "Pelicanheads for a Better America," that would be okay.

If a group was formed that represented the workers at ABC Manufacturing, that would be a citizen group.

If a group were called "Corporations for a More Profitable Business Environment," that would not be okay because it would not be a group of citizens.

And corps. don't represent their human shareholders and employees? At least employees aren't forced to pay PAC dues to corps., while they are forced to pay union dues, regardless of their political affiliation. I'd be pretty chapped about being forced to pay dues to a union that gives them to candidates I do not support.

Jim's concept of an ideal world--where unions are good and actually represent their members and corps are bad and seek to exploit their employees--is showing through again.

Fact is that a superficially democratic group like a union may be going against the wishes of 49% of its members. That's bad. Likewise a company lobbying to get more business is acting in the interest of 100% of its employees. Sounds like that's a good thing to me.

So if you're going to say "power to the people" you have to mean individually, not bound into coercive groups.

Perhaps both unions and companies should do what churches do: lay out the issues for their members/employees and suggest that looking at things a certain way would (in their opinion) be good for those members/employees. They could also provide contact info or even facilitate letter writing or donations in a confidential way.

Yeah right--that'll happen. :rolleyes:

Okay, Jon. Sounds good.