You're wrong. A company's management speaks on behalf of the company. And not always in the interest of the shareholders, and definitely never in the interest of all the shareholders.
Which humans does this corporation speak on behalf of? Are they all American citizens, for example? Do you think that matters if, say, Exxon decides to run for a seat in Congress?
With the indirection that corporate structure creates, the following are some of my concerns:
1) You mention "Those same people "it" (or in reality, the people within it) acts on behalf of."
a) 'the people within it' --> a company does emphatically not speak for the people within it. This is in stark contrast with a political party or other groups joined by individuals for political purposes
b) you could argue for the shareholders --> but, the major shareholders are mostly pension funds etc. Membership to these funds is mandated by employers, with little choice by employees (i.e. most voters).
2) And your 2nd comment: "Why do you dive on this red herring instead of trying to address whatever your real concern is?"
The United States Constitution preamble: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
If a corporations can run for a seat in Congress, and, if they are the voice of shareholders, and these shareholders can be foreign, where does that leave our democracy?
"'the people within it' --> a company does emphatically not speak for the people within it."
I did not say it necessarily did, though it's certainly speaking for its leadership, who answers to the human shareholders and is voluntarily associated with the other people in the company.
"This is in stark contrast with a political party or other groups joined by individuals for political purposes"
Indeed. It's a group created for other purposes. Political involvement is a valid avenue for pursuing those purposes, as the political system affects the group.
"If a corporations can run for a seat in Congress, and, if they are the voice of shareholders, and these shareholders can be foreign, where does that leave our democracy?"
That's not a concern, that's open-ended rhetoric based on a publicity stunt. EDIT: One based on a facile misreading of legal principles intended to confuse the uninformed.
"That's not a concern, that's open-ended rhetoric based on a publicity stunt. EDIT: One based on a facile misreading of legal principles intended to confuse the uninformed."
Uhm, huh? Let's say Exxon runs for a seat. During its term, 20% of Exxon is purchased by PetroChina. So now the seat is no longer under American control. The person who was elected to Congress is no longer the same person; legally it is still Exxon, but in reality it is a different person since the new shareholder, who is a foreigner, exerts significant influence.
Yes, the reasoning is bogus because Exxon can't take public office. Full stop.
You - and many other people in this discussion - are confusing different legal concepts of "person" as well as "citizen". People like those in the linked story are working to encourage that confusion.
I don't confuse citizenship with legal person at all.
However, I am assuming the company in the article is thinking it stands a chance, as evidenced by it spending dollars to test how far it can go. Otherwise they're pretty stupid, which they may very well be.
If the management is not speaking in the interest of the shareholders, they are violating their fiduciary duty and should be fired by the board.
If the board does not fire them, the shareholders can fire the board.
As for the minority shareholders, they agreed that their property (their portion of the company) would be bound by the decision of the majority subject to the restrictions of the corporate charter.
For the majority of the S&P 500, the major shareholders are funds. The people who pay into these funds are employees, who, for practical purposes, don't have a meaningful range of choice or voting power.
When I signed up for my pension fund, I agreed that money would be spent as directed by the fund managers in a manner consistent with maximizing the size [1] of my investment in 2050.
This was my choice. If I disliked this, I could have made no contribution to the fund, or even quit my job.
[1] I oversimplify. They try to maximize an objective function which penalizes volatility, particularly volatility at the end of the life of the fund.
