Quote:
Originally Posted by Aquila
Today there is a growing trend in corporate America. More and more private corporations are choosing not to employ smokers and are requiring employees to take tobacco tests to verify that there are non-smokers. Those found to be smokers are being fired even if they only smoke on personal time at home.
Now, I have mixed feelings on the subject but it’s a fact that corporations are becoming increasingly intrusive as it suits their bottom line. That bothers me.
Let’s say that one day in the future a conglomerate of corporations called Omnicorp produce the technology to micro-chip every American citizen. These corporations will receive billions of dollars from the government to issue their new bio-tag IDs. Now there’s an election coming up with one politician who favors the initiative and one who doesn’t. Corporations that will benefit from the issuing of this new security technology are going to pour untold amounts of money behind his running for election. You will hear the dissenting voice on public radio and sound bite news blurbs. But for the most part the television and airwaves are going to be FILLED with patriotic music, scenes of mom baking hot apple pie in the kitchen, and a message illustrating how these microchips are as American as it comes. And in this age of increased national security challenges it’s our duty to be micro-chipped. There will be adds about lost and abducted children, ailing elderly parents. All demonstrating how this new micro-chip technology will make life “safer”. There will be a plethora of these ads since they have all the corporate money behind them. The adds will increasingly give the impression that this is the opinion of every American… the adds are on every station, at all times, and after all… have you heard the “other guy’s” adds? No, he’s just a marginalized voice of the fringe who doesn’t favor this initiative because of their paranoia or political irrationality. So vote for our pro-chip candidate.
The way I see it a corporation isn’t a human being. It’s money and resources do not belong on the political landscape. The CEO of a corporation can donate private funds out of his own account if he favors a candidate, just like me. He can write an article to the editor, just like me. He can go to the ballot box and vote his convictions, just like me. Why give him such a great advantage if using corporate money to get his message out and silence anyone else’s?
I do see a freedom of speech issue here. In a society where money talks… the one with the most money (corporations) will have the floor relatively unchallenged.
I just don’t want American to become the greatest nation money can buy.
|
Only one issue with this ... lobbyists. Substitute lobbyist for corporations in your quote and it's the same thing that's been done for years. Lobbyists are retained by companies or corporations to influence Congress on bills. This wasn't changed with the ruling.
As for as the last sentence, as we've seen with BHO's healthcare bill - money or earmarks talk already. No need for companies to get involved when you have a President and his chief of staff authorizing bribes in order to shove their legislation thru Congress.
Threaded Mode
