Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Overcoming Bias Commenter's avatar

I realize this discussion has moved on, so I may be shouting in the wind here. But FWIW, I thought I should at least clarify my own point of view.

When Halliburton sponsors a candidate, I assume that they do so because they believe (a) that candidate's views will be good for Halliburton's bottom line and (b) that candidate may feel more kindly toward Halliburton, either consciously or unconsciously, after receiving a generous donation, and that kindliness will be good for Halliburton's bottom line.

That is, the good of Hallilburton comes first -- and why shouldn't it? I may have issues with political funding, but those issues relate to how best and fairly to set up our rules, not with the company who donates. They're protecting themselves.

When a politician runs for office, the good of the citizens they represent is supposed to come first -- and indeed, when there's a conflict of interest, their opponent does well to point it out.

If Halliburton ran for office... what? Suddenly the company has undergone a change, and they no longer come first? They're running for office for the good of the citizens of some location, and Halliburton's financial interests (the reason the company was created) will take a backseat? I hope they've notified their shareholders that the company no longer exists to make the best profit it can, but instead to "help people."

As for this talk of brands: a politician has one brand: he's perceived as helping his constituents, or he's not.

Johnson & Johnson, running for office, would have two brands: They make good household products, and they want to help people. Why is it crazy and paranoid to think that an entity trying to fulfill two different goals will have those goals come in conflict, and the bigger the company is, the more engaged in many different areas, the more likely this is to happen? And when the very purpose of the company is to create wealth... I just don't see how you can hijack it for a second and sometimes conflicting purpose. That will by the way not generate wealth. Just because someone thought it would be fun to do some slow afternoon in the boardroom? It just strikes me as bizarre -- like, "I'd like to move some water from place A to place B, but instead of using a pipe, I think I'll use a lightbulb filament! I know it's designed and created to do something else entirely, but you guys are just paranoid if you think it can't do this as well!"

Expand full comment
Overcoming Bias Commenter's avatar

Yes before corporations there wasn't even a word for "reputation."

Expand full comment
63 more comments...

No posts