Companies are not People

‘Are Companies People?’ is asked of candidates and they flounder to provide the simple answer that is clear to so many.  Companies are not People.

In most contexts this is an absurd construction. Can Companies laugh or cry, get angry, fall in love, make babies and raise a family? Do they go for a swim, create soaring novels or paint affecting pictures? Do they write inspiring speeches, create beautiful music or tell a simple joke?  Companies do not participate in a human, intimate conversation or any of the other myriad things people do every day.  Companies are not flesh and blood members of the animal kingdom. They are organized extensions of people banding together to accomplish a useful and desirable function.

Rightfully Companies do not vote. Companies should be barred from political involvement. This is not their role. They are citizens of a commercial landscape and there is great danger when they try to extend their influence to the political realm. They do this mostly to gain commercial advantage. And that advantage is typically to the detriment of something else, like the climate, the environment or employee’s or customer’s health and safety. In its most blatant form they try to avoid or shift or mask the consequences of their activities and thus postpone the cost of responsibility.  More insidiously, this involvement sometimes is done to shield individuals from being identified with their opinions. We do not have government of and by and for the corporation. The Founding Fathers took personal responsibility for their actions. They risked their individual positions, fortunes and well being. We seem to have lost this stand up courage. 


From a legal perspective companies need some rights and protections to allow for efficient participation in the commercial realm. There is a need for fair and equitable regulations so that size or deceit does not tilt transactions in unproductive and dishonest directions.  But these are not the same rights people have and need. This is not the same as participation in the body politic, in the debate in the public square over those things that affect the citizen and the community.  I do not understand why companies have any right to use the funds generated in commercial activities as donations to candidates or political causes.  The funds go to their owners and workers, and it is people who have the responsibility, opportunity and obligation to support the candidates of their choice and guide the political conversation in the direction of their values.

And candidates are not companies, they are people and our system is designed to have people represent the views of people. Companies are organized to do business. The people who own or work for a company have every right use their money in the way they see fit. This is a personal right, not a corporate right. Companies have every right to use their corporate resources in the commercial realm, to make and market, to employ and sell.  But companies do not have a right to use their money in the political realm. They are not citizens, they have no vote. They are not a part of the democratic enumeration embodied so eloquently in 'We, the people...'  They do not count in the census and should not have a monetary voice in political discourse.

Not only do we need separation of church and state but we also need separation of corporation and state. We have put our military under civilian administration. We do not need corporations at the top of the pyramid. They are just another category of organization that is answerable to the People.  They are not the People’s equal. 

When enough really is.

Hard work, creativity, ingenuity should be rewarded but at some point enough does become enough. As we look to restructure economic mores, we need to build in restraint and responsibility. The sign of success should not be more houses or planes then the next family but time with family and friends and a foundation that puts back in large measures some of the fruits of any success. Some of that is the responsibility to pay taxes which are social dues to the team. Some of that is charity which should be assumed and not coerced by tax breaks. And some should be directed energy at things that need doing and may not have a financial return. It is time to be citizens in a society where everyone can count on each other.

So far off track

It is very sad that a good and honorable man, John McCain, has so lost his moral and political compass that he has turned over his campaign to discredited Bushies. Whether you agree with many of his positions or not, for a long time he at least had an honest connection to his ideas and attempted to talk about issues. To now approve an ad that attempts to connect Barack Obama to Paris Hilton is so far off track and disingenious as to border on pathetic. McCain should get back to running an honorable and respectful campaign with a serious discussion of issues. He needs to have enough confidence in his vision to attempt to win on principles and not on smear. Obama has demonstrated just such leadership and vision. He has the courage to engage in the arena of ideas and win or lose on merit and not on spin. Maybe it was too much to expect McCain to do the same and make this an election that the nation could be proud of.

Corporate vs Personal Donations

I don’t understand why a company would or should make a political donation. Companies do not have political opinions. They cannot vote. The only reasons they exist is to improve their economic opportunities and therefore their value to their owners and shareholders.

What would happen if we removed “political action committees” from the customer lists of any organization be it Union or Corporate? Donations would have to be made (and recorded as coming from) individuals. People could vote with their money all they wanted to but it would have to be a public vote, not a secret, indirect, backroom vote.

It is the aggregation of money that makes it caustic. A donation from the AFL-CIO or NRA or AARP is not a reflection of lots of individuals taking initiative but the abdication of initiative through some willful grouping that removes any connection to a person. Coming together as a group is fine but let's remove the anonymity from the actions. Let's make visible and real a persons commitment to a cause.

The Sin of the Medicaid Muddle

I have only one question about the Medicaid prescription drug plan, why is there any sign up at all? And why is there a different price for the same drug depending on who you sign up with?

We have a huge population of seniors who have earned their peace, why must it be confusing and frightening for them just when they should be able to relax? They raised us, built our cars, taught our classes, fought for our freedom. They are grandparents to a generation whose future is a whole lot less secure then the one given to us boomers. And now we put them through this insanity in the name of providing them a benefit. There should nothing to pick. They all deserve the same treatment, equal access to quality medication at a fair price.

We have a vast drug industry that is surrounded by a dispensing infrastructure that has lost its way. No longer is the goal to heal, cure and improve. Now the goal is to sell, profit and place. Blockbusters deal with fictional problems that are given a name just so the commercials can pounce on them and encourage you to talk to you doctor about ED and RLS. And we still haven't cure malaria or hunger.

We need to get back to principles where most people benefit and there is a general goal to improve the lot of the majority. We need to stop rewarding greed and be responsible to others for our actions. If a company pays its CEO too much, stop buying their products. Look for companies that have a social and environmentally aware dimension. Go for a walk in the rain rather then drive.

Transfer of Wealth

The sale of the Gillette company is creating a large angst in the cosmos and needs to be examined. The CEO, James Kilts, is getting rewarded for ostensibly creating value for the owners (shareholders). He is walking away with something on the order of $150 to $180 million dollars depending on who is analyzing the fine print. In the process of combining with P&G, they will eliminate 4,000 jobs in the name of efficiency and cost cutting. Seems to me the savings in being passed on to Kilts and his team and stolen from those who are being laid off. It is approximately $37,000 per layoffee being handed to Kilts. Where is the benefit or value to anyone in that? Why should Kilts get the money for destroying those jobs.

Seems to me that there ought to be a way to calculate executive compensation that includes how well the employees are doing along with how well the owners are doing. Executive should not be paid more than then some multiplier, say 50 times the average salaries of non-execs. There should be an incentive to raise the average wage and hire more people. There should not be an incentive for selling the company, taking a bunch of money and dumping a crowd into the street. This is stealing. If a company gets sold, the value should go to all of the employees that contributed to building the organization not to the executives who happen to be running it.

Good Snow and Bad Snow

Good snow is wonderful. It is sculpted, cleanly bright, refreshing to eye and soul, decorating tree and fence and porch, hiding blemishes and dressing all in royal, winter jewelry. It closes schools. Kids climb on it and slide down it. They dig into it, pile it and roll it into imaginary forms. Adults dash away to it and then shush down it with various levels of elegance and skill. The world is pure and cheeks are healthy.

Bad snow is like heavy, grey oil, slippery to foot and tire. It closes schools. Hiding parking spaces, filling driveways, blocking walks and doors, it narrows roads to single lane canyons, hiding intersections and sapping the will to travel. Shopping becomes exertion, travel becomes extremely hazardous, routine is routinely disrupted.