[awak3ning]

The answer to the question is no. Companies should not do politics.

Companies, however, will continue to do politics so long as it furthers their self-interest as there is a failure of separation of powers between government and corporations in the modern age.

[skybrian]

There is some politics in every organization, because organizations are created with some mission in mind and people are going to disagree on how to accomplish it and how to balance it with other things.

The question is, can people concentrate on the mission and agree to disagree about many other things? Or are you going to try to limit the organization to people who agree on a lot of different political questions?

[jcfrei]

Why should there be a separation between corporations and government? I could see a valid argument for limiting their influence on government but they are an important stakeholder in society. So why shouldn't they have some influence (in particular on the legislative process)?

[zanny]

People are the stakeholders in society. The CEO, board, management, and investors of every company are people and are by and large residents of a democratic state they can vote in.

That should the extent of their legislative and electoral influence. As soon as corporations have any voice in government beyond that you are left with a facsimile of democracy where the amount of power and money you control directly correlates to your influence in the purported democratic institutions of your government.

A corporation involved in politics is exclusively behaving to the whims of its controlling interest which is almost always an investor class numbering between one and a hundred persons. Their interests are obviously and profoundly over-represented in the legislative agendas of practically every government on Earth and its due to the double edged sword of their personal wealth directly buying them political will and their ownership of business giving them a mouthpiece and apparatus to also influence politics through. Both are destructive to civilization, whose their influence has waxed and waned for half a millennia. Where their peaks often bore a prelude to catastrophic events in history.

[SV_BubbleTime]

> Why should there be a separation between corporations and government?

I wouldn’t say there should or shouldn’t be.

I look at it like this... do you have a job to do? Is that job directly tied to a political position? If not, do your job.

Don’t talk about politics or religion (if they’re even a different thing anymore) at work. You are just going to offend someone for no reason.

[Gibbon1]

Problem with companies doing politics is it's the corporate officers using shareholders money to do politics to push officers agenda not the shareholders.

[cgrealy]

"Not doing politics" is itself a political position. It is a tacit endorsement of the political status quo.

[awak3ning]

The notion that "Not doing politics" is political position is a fairly recent fallacy. I believe that the individuals who parrot this sentiment verbatim have been reinforced with this idea from lobbyists and monied interests (including corporations and the media). The reason that I think this is as follows:

This notion helps to habituate partisan zealotry, which allows individuals to have their attention captured for profit, and makes them more manipulatable. If non-involvement in one facet of one dimension of life (politics for the benefit of corporations) is now not possible, then nobody is safe from the moral imperialism of political movements.

There are many spheres of life and influence within the world, and politics is but one of them. In modern times, however, the lines between different currencies of power are blurring, and there are clear channels for the transmutation of different types of power and capital to political power. For corporations, this is very appealing because democratic ideals, the environment, or individual rights might be at odds with their interests. Therefore, if they can convince you to give up your individualism in order to become politicized towards a cause that benefits the corporation, that is a wonderful way to circumvent democracy and concentrate power.

[cgrealy]

>There are many spheres of life and influence within the world, and politics is but one of them.

True, but it is one that permeates all others. You cannot remove politics from any sphere and it is a fallacy to believe you can.

And as you've pointed out, whatever about leaving politics out of <insert sphere here>, politics is inherently linked to the corporate world.

[rayiner]

No it’s not. It’s an endorsement of norms about the role of political activism in relation to other aspects of society. But it’s not an endorsement of the status quo on particular substantive issues. It doesn’t necessarily even have the indirect effect of propping up the status quo.

Consider, for example, endorsements of political positions by Hollywood celebrities. The practice probably had a net negative impact on most of the substantive political positions they support. (E.g. Jane Fonda effect.)

[ac2u]

This is the point that folks that repeat the line:

"It is a tacit endorsement of the political status quo. reply "

never seem to have an answer for.

Let's say I own a company and I'm not happy with the status quo, but I decide that the best way to enact change is via my agency as a private citizen instead of throwing my company brand and money after it. What gives someone the right to think that they can read my mind as to whether I'm ok with the status quo or not?

It drips with arrogance as it's just a cheap line to repeat instead of actual productive work.

Maybe I've decided that having me tackle it and not my company is more effective due to people seeing a company endorsement of a political message as a diluted bandwagon hopping exercise.

[Google234]

Or accepting the current trends? We’re not frozen