Is it acceptable that "unelected corporate leaders" make public policy?

This question was inspired by (of all things) a discussion on the legalization of marijuana over on another thread.

So here goes: througout America's history, unelected leaders have had a great impact on national (and of course local) policy. Abolition, prohibition, and anticommunist movements -- which ended up being implemented as national policies -- started with self-appointed activists who won enough hearts and minds to eventually garner government support.

As with the examples above, some of these were liberal, some repressive. Some were wicked beyond imagining.

Nowadays, corporations have more power than ever before (more, even than in the days of the great 19th century robber barons). Quietly, these titans of industry are changing the laws to suit them, even when in the long run such changes damage the country and will end up hurting even their silent and shadowy sponsors.

Where's the moral/political divide here? What kind of activism is OK and what kind isn't? And what do we do about it?

there would be an impact on people's perception.

... by increasingly wealthy interests has overthrown the Constitution. It is hard to imagine what is not justified to reverse such a trend, at least from a moral point of view. I work for the state and am not allowed to condone any criminal conduct, though secretly I applaud whenever ELF burns down a building. Even though it is a major crime, it is hard not to empathize when the whole deck is stacked against us.

Simply the slowing down of the power accumulation process.

Went through democratic means. Laws, courts, judges and such. Ended up with corporations being legally human. Over the next century, we've seen the wealth they have. Those with power know they need to keep power by centralizing and consolidating. Buyouts, mergers, etc. They buy the politicians. Make the federal regulatory bodies work for them.

We'll end up with Wal-Mart, ExxonMobil, and NewsCorp owning everything under the sun. They'll have to continue to use more and more energy to keep power by consolidating and centralizing.

:argh: :wtf: :silly: :grr:

Ever since Henry Ford tried to reduce the price of his cars (he thought he was making too much money) and the Dodge Brothers (major stockholders) sued him, the courts have been very consistent in ruling that corporations MAY NOT use the stockholder's money for ANYTHING that does not have a reasonable expectation of return on investment. Charity? Only for “good relations” that will result in greater profit. This is what is known as the “fiduciary responsibility” of the CEO.

So what, exactly, is the “reasonable expectation of return on investment” when a CEO channels money to a politician?

The ONLY thing a politician can make his “pay back” with is the public’s money, either as favorable legislation for that corporation that increases its bottom line, or with direct largess. Which is to say, that the whole transaction is simply a case of BRIBERY. Do I have to tell you why bribery is bad?

Which is why those of us at http://breakthelink.org are pushing our amendments against political bribery. Every signature we collect is a stake in the heart of sleazy CEOs who think that their profit obtained by bribery is more valuable to their stockholders and themselves than the well-being of their country. Does this all-too-common practice sound like Legal Treason to anyone but me?

or their lobbyists . . . where do you think the bankruptcy bill came from? . . .

cure it.

You should really wake up, America...