![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
So, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations can spend as much money as they want to buy political ads. I'm not terribly happy about that rule, although I think Keith Olbermann is wetting the bed just a little. I'm also not sure that if we make corporations disclose their donations in detail we could dispell some of the astroturfing that plagues American politics.
Of course, The Usual Suspects are celebrating the "blow struck for freedom." When I pointed out to one of them that size and scale matters, he replied "why shouldn't Bill Gates get to spend his money however he wants to?"
I don't worry about Bill Gates. I worry about John Chambers and Constance H. Lau. Who, you say? John Chambers is CEO of Cisco Systems, and he controls point zero six percent (0.06%) of Cisco stock. Ms. Lau is CEO of Hawaiian Electric, and she controls point two one percent (0.21%) of the stock of her company. Now, both of those people get to use "their" companies to play like Bill Gates does.
I own Hawaiian Electric stock, so technically Lau works for me. But here's what really happens - I get a packet in the mail with a slate of directors (who I never heard of) and official biographies, and I get to vote yes, no or abstain. I have no idea how these people got to be on the board, or what they plan to do while on it. I probably own Cisco stock, or more correctly own a mutual fund that owns stock. But I don't even get to vote that stock - some fund manager (who I didn't elect and don't know) votes it.
If you get the idea that the average American corporation is ran by somebody elected with all the transparency and democracy of Pope Benedict XVI, you'd not be far off. Given that, I'm not sure how much power I want to give these folks.
Of course, The Usual Suspects are celebrating the "blow struck for freedom." When I pointed out to one of them that size and scale matters, he replied "why shouldn't Bill Gates get to spend his money however he wants to?"
I don't worry about Bill Gates. I worry about John Chambers and Constance H. Lau. Who, you say? John Chambers is CEO of Cisco Systems, and he controls point zero six percent (0.06%) of Cisco stock. Ms. Lau is CEO of Hawaiian Electric, and she controls point two one percent (0.21%) of the stock of her company. Now, both of those people get to use "their" companies to play like Bill Gates does.
I own Hawaiian Electric stock, so technically Lau works for me. But here's what really happens - I get a packet in the mail with a slate of directors (who I never heard of) and official biographies, and I get to vote yes, no or abstain. I have no idea how these people got to be on the board, or what they plan to do while on it. I probably own Cisco stock, or more correctly own a mutual fund that owns stock. But I don't even get to vote that stock - some fund manager (who I didn't elect and don't know) votes it.
If you get the idea that the average American corporation is ran by somebody elected with all the transparency and democracy of Pope Benedict XVI, you'd not be far off. Given that, I'm not sure how much power I want to give these folks.
