Agreed.  Corporate involvement in politics leads to corruption.

Interestingly enough News Corp's ties with the British Government is under intense scrutiny at the Leveson Inquiry: It has been revealed that Rupert Murdoch told Blair he was not to change his mind on the invasion of Iraq.

The corporation/media had an influence on foreign policy.  Quelle suprise...

It's impossible to prevent corporate interests from advocating their views. Corporations are, after all, merely people--who have free speech--collaborating for profit. Attempts to curtail their free speech will just result in more corruption. Talking isn't so harmful. Conspiracies are a little more so.

I agree that companies should probably not take a stand against the horrible action of "not wanting to finance abortions." It's just not that evil.

I think the point is that, while companies will always advocate on behalf of their own interests, taking purely purely political stances which cause serious stock value losses is just stupid.

politics should stay out of companies

Yeah, people shouldn't have free speech! You go WFS! So enlightened! So free!

Companies aren't citizens, and some companies have foreign origins. You want them to fund political campaigns? Traitors! Off with your heads!

I have nothing against companies collaborating with government. A company ought to be allowed to argue in defense or opposition to legislation that would affect them, or argue that a policy would enable them to better serve the needs of the population. What I don't like is when companies dictate political events, or effectively bribe politicians. Reminds me of the prank call to governor Scott Walker, where the guy posed as a Koch brother and Walker treated him like he was his master.

Companies made up of American citizens have every right to take part in the communicative process. They produce something, make profits, and employ people. They're central to most Americans' lives and well-being.

Electing politicians who can be bought is on the populace, and has nothing to do with companies' free speech right. if WFS and Justinian are suggesting that taking away companies' free speech rights would somehow keep them out of politics, out of bribing and owning elected officials, they're sadly ignorant and mistaken.

More free speech rights and knowing where people and organizations stand politically is a good thing. What we do with that knowledge is on us.

Kemp,

I have nothing against wealthy individuals, owners, or CEOs contributing to political campaigns, just not from the corporate treasury.

so... what about super pac's? how about campaign donations? lobbiests? advertising?

companies should have very limited rights as opinions can and will most likely be in the interest of personal gain at the loss of others with no responsibility to the effects. you cannot jail a company as it is not a living entity. a company can simply break any law, pay its pety fine, and continue on with business, if severe enough, the company can even create a new identity completely while keeping the same minds in control.

Negative.

A publically owned company versus a privately held company, there is a difference. There is also the situation when there is a single majority stake holder (or a tight group with majority ownership) where you know your in bed with their idealism.

But what we had here was attacks upon other businesses for political purposes.

Donating or talking about a politician is one thing, but trying to destroy a business (or harm, scare, intimidate...) because of their political views is wrong.

This is the point I am making and why those businesses are suffering Tea Party wrath (they are more dependent upon citizens for their revenues where Planned Parenthood relies on Not for Profits and Government funds).