Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jeff Hayden who wrote (129688)	2/1/2010 3:40:39 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541972

Certainly not the stockholder - that person is only an owner. The owner has the eventually say, although that control is rarely used strongly and directly. If a company is pushing unpopular enough ideas or any ideas that work against the financial interest of the stockholders than the stock price will suffer. Yes the control often isn't very direct, but it also isn't in other organizations that are involved to a much greater extent. Political parties have only very diffuse control by any specific members, political organizations are only indirectly controlled by those giving them money. What the New York Times writes is not usually under any sort of direct control by stockholders. The US government isn't strongly controlled by any individual, not even the president, much less a typical voter. The lack of strong, direct, day to day control doesn't keep the corporation from being a group of humans acting collectively. If a corporation is privately run, there is no question that the owner is entitled to speak freely, for him/herself. And now there is no question that he can do so with corporate funds. What if one or many in the corporation disagree with the "corporation's" speech or ideology? If the disagreement is sufficiently strong for it to be a major issue, they can end their association with the company.