[clue-talk] The stimulus bill

[Nate Duehr]

Ahh, yes.  I see.

Government for the Corporation, of the Corporation, and by the  
Corporation.  Got it.

Very true.

Of course, the "fix" for that is in the shareholders of the  
corporation's, hands... if the shareholders would just pay attention  
and direct the companies.

Do they want the corporation lobbying?  Have they spoken up and stated  
so?

Carl Icahn is trying to get traction in that regard, but people just  
don't seem to "get it" that many corporations are "owned" by lots and  
lots of 401K and other pooled assets from people who CAN have a voice,  
if they'd flex that muscle a bit.

http://www.icahnreport.com/report/2008/10/join-the-united.html

Nate

On Feb 7, 2009, at 12:21 PM, Brian Gibson wrote:

> Lessig is referring to buying politicians off.  See change- 
> congress.org for more info.  Nothing Marxist about it.  Simply put,  
> politicians cannot act  independently and in favor of the public  
> good when biased by monetary contributions and that such  
> contributions puts doubt in the public mind who politicians actually  
> represent.  For example, copyright extensions are not in the  
> public's best interest yet Congress has continued to side with  
> corporate interests rather than public interests.  Or in the case of  
> the telecom immunity...  First Congress voted against telecom  
> immunity, then three months later voted in favor of telecom  
> immunity.  The difference being that those Democrats who changed  
> their votes had received twice as many contributions from telco  
> companies than those who did not change their vote.  No one admits  
> is about the money, but it's one of those things that make you go  
> "hmmmm".  Lessig brings up the interesting point that as Congress  
> fails
> as a representative voice of the people that it inadvertently shifts  
> power to the executive and judicial branches which became evident  
> when Clinton and Bush expanded presidential powers.