So the real reason we should be aghast at the Supreme Court's ruling isn't because unlimited corporate electioneering is bad for our democracy, it's because unlimited corporate electioneering is bad for business?

The whole argument seems like a stretch to me . . . I mean corporations already have large PR departments devoted exclusively to spreading propaganda and lobbying politicians. Doing a few campaign ads will hardly strain these operations . . . . and the CEO, I'm sure, will still have plenty of time for golf.

Bernard, I appreciate your attempt to mount an argument against activist corporate participation in politics that might actually appeal to some corporate leaders. The argument is similar to arguments that have sometimes been offered in debates about religion and politics, in which one tries to convince religious leaders that they should stay out of politics because it is bad for religion.

The problem is that the argument just isn't that convincing, especially in the field of corporate participation as opposed to religious participation, so I don't think we should waste a lot of time advancing it and relying on it. The argument seems based on a string of assumptions tending to the conclusion that corporate participation in the political arena is inordinately expensive, time-consuming and ultimately self-destructive, even from the standpoint of the corporation's own profits, and is thus a misallocation of valuable corporate resources that would be better spent on primary business operations and competition.

But it's hard for me to believe this is true as a general principle. Most businesses who participate in politics are not trying to rewrite the entire social contract, or pursue grandiose, Herculean social and political agendas. They are just trying to rewrite the rules of widget regulation; re-engineer a few trade barriers; or make the extraction of the resources they need, or the employment of the workers they need, less costly and burdensome for their companies. While wasteful and unproductive expenditures of time and money no doubt occur, I assume that on the whole companies know how to pursue these interests effectively in the political arena. Indeed, I suspect that on average their participation is much more efficient and effective than the participation of average citizens, since they have the resources at hand to hire expert operatives who make it their business to cultivate influence, and know much more about how the game is played than ordinary folks.

So why should Destor, Purple State, Libertine and I, along with a few hundred million other Americans, take an interest in limiting the role and influence of corporations on our politics? For the simple reason that we in the former group possess numerous shared individual interests that are in many cases - though not all - in conflict with the interests of the corporations.

Is a corporation my enemy? Not necessarily. But corporations are, in some cases, my economic and political competitors in some areas, and have different interests than I do. There might be some corporation that has a very strong and entirely understandable economic interest in dumping waste water and chemicals into a local river I love, or in cutting down large swaths of the forest in which I roam, or in reducing their own tax burden so that my family and I either have to pay more taxes ourselves, or accept fewer or lower quality government services. If I find those particular corporate interests and lobbying agendas to be contrary to my own interests, and if I find that I share my interests with a very large number of other people, then it makes obvious sense for me to work with those other people cooperatively to advance our common interests, and to thwart the interests of our corporate competitor.

For the most part, the question of whether a corporation is a person or not is not germane, since the same considerations arise if Destor, Purple State, Libertine and I find our interests in conflict with the personal interests of the human being Bill Gates, rather than the corporate interests of Microsoft. The real issue is whether a political agent of any kind, personal or corporate, commands a very large sum of resources - that is, whether they are rich. If they are rich and function as an organized political unit, either because they are a rational and disciplined corporation or a rational and disciplined individual human being, then they are frequently in a position to exert a very disproportionate influence on political decision-making, and see to it that their own interests count for more than the interests of tens of millions or hundreds of millions of other people.

For those of us who are not personally rich, and who do not comprise the class of powerful and wealthy corporations and individuals, I don't think we should waste a lot of time looking for too-clever-by-half arguments designed to convince the wealthy and powerful that they should do us all a favor and stay out of politics These arguments aren't going to work very well. The controllers of concentrated power and wealth are going to work the political system to advance their interests, at least to the extent the law allows them - and sometimes in ways the law doesn't allow. Instead of trying to talk them into being nice to us, we should focus on building coalitions among ourselves to advance our own interests, and to work unapologetically to re-direct power and wealth away from the pinnacle of the pyramid and toward the base. We should do that just because the result is a good outcome for everyone who does not occupy a position at the pinnacle.

The only effective political tool against the concentrated wealth and power of the few is the potential for broad political solidarity and pooled wealth and power of the many. But a great many modern liberals seem to love entering political debate with all ten of their thumbs tied behind their backs. Like medieval serfs whose heads are so stuffed with ideologies manufactured by their rulers, and designed to rationalize the privileges enjoyed by those rulers and sustain the rulers' interests, the modern liberal mind is encumbered with self-defeating and self-denying ideologies that deflect people from the frank and unembarrassed pursuit of their own interests.

"I don't think we should waste a lot of time looking for too-clever-by-half arguments designed to convince the wealthy and powerful that they should do us all a favor and stay out of politics."

Dan K, as usual a very thoughtful and articulate criticism. On the whole, there is little in your underlying approach that I would take issue with. But I don't think you appreciate how radical is the proposal I am half-seriously advancing.

First, Bill Gates is so closely associated with Microsoft, and is so wealthy, he may not be our best example, although you'd have to admit he is very different persona now than when he was defending himself against anti-trust suits. On the whole, when people act as private citizens, they have to appeal to some notion of a universal good. It is hard to imagine Bill Gates starting a nonprofit arguing for bundling browsers with operating systems, though when you look at the NRA, you can see how these lines get crossed. No solution is airtight,but the question is: what kind of problems do you want to struggle with? I would rather have rich people restricted to activities in the commonwealth, rather than acting as managers, advancing the peculiar interests of their companies.

Second, competition these days is very intense. When managers at General Motors or AT&T or Procter & Gamble or General Electric commit to changing the contours of the playing field, they are simultaneously committing to a range of products and strategy and business architecture, all of which are very hard to undo. These managers are much more anonymous than Bill Gates is, and much less rich. They should be forced to get up every morning and worry about whether the company will still be around in five years. Because if they are not prepared to innovate, they won't be around. Tinkering with the playing field may buy them a little time; but the forces working against them are much bigger than anything Congress can control.

By the way,I very much like the analogy to religion. The separation of religion and state really is good for religion, as any American who has seen the empty brooding cathedrals of France can see. I live much of the time in Jerusalem where an established religion is destroying both democratic life and itself. America's founders all had lively religious imaginations, and wanted the freedom and creativity of individuals to continue to inform theology. Freedom and creativity are necessary for business strategy, too, a Philistine comment in the context of religion, perhaps, but another way of saying that freedom and creativity are necessary for just about anything of value. Nobody is as smart as everybody.

One last thing, I am not trying to tell the heads of corporations that getting out of politics completely is for their own good any more than I would try to tell Cardinal Spellman that getting out of politics would be good for the Catholic Church. My appeal is to the readers of this blog, ordinary citizens, to think about rules that we could enact to rein in corporations. But, again, the analogy to religious institutions may be helpful. In return for staying out of politics as institutions, churches pay no taxes. Obviously, ministers and congeragnts

Great column. But your last line really is what makes me lose interest in concrete proposals regarding the political power of corporations. I'd really like to see some thinking on how to get from where we are to a place where enacting any such proposals becomes viable.

I agree some such legislation NEEDS to be enacted, but that is so precisely because it is pragmatically IMPOSSIBLE to do so given the current system. So what now...?

Thanks for your patience and sorry for the inconvenience!

Best regards, Mary, CEO of youtube to mp3