The problem with having principles is then they get tested and you have to do things that you don't want to. For example, Robert Scoble's gathered up a lot of the conversation around Microsoft's decision to drop support for an antidiscrimination bill in Washington. Microsoft claims they're just not in the business of supporting legislation at all anymore, anti-civil-rights groups are claiming a victory in getting Microsoft to drop their support, and most other people are lamenting that Microsoft caved in.
So, Steve Ballmer did the CEO thing and explained the party line to Microsoft's employees, and then Robert gathered up the message along with some commentary and now everyone's in the midst of another one of those go-nowhere blog debates.
I'm struck, though, by how few liberals are supporting the idea that gigantic corporations shouldn't be involved in legal advocacy. I think my credentials on supporting human rights are pretty solid, but I think Microsoft (or any large company) has a pretty shoddy record of supporting socially responsible legislation. That they might be right in this case doesn't mean I don't want them to butt out of the legislative process entirely.
So, let's celebrate Microsoft getting out of the law-making business. The civil rights struggle will progress without them, and we'll be better off than if they keep pushing the other 99% of their legal agenda that isn't very humane or socially responsible.
we'll be better off than if they keep pushing the other 99% of their legal agenda that isn't very humane or socially responsible.
Of course, they are going to keep pushing this part of their legal agenda. Ballmer wrote:
"When our government affairs team put together its list of its legislative priorities in Olympia before the Legislative Session began in January, we decided to focus on a limited number of issues that are more directly related to our business such as computer privacy, education, and competitiveness. The anti-discrimination bill was not on this list and as a result Microsoft was not actively supporting the bill in the Legislature this year, although last year we did provide a letter of support for similar legislation."
Agreed... I'm not sure what any corporation would be doing enforcing or influencing social behavior, anyway. Thanks for noting that view, Anil.
jd
Corporations are always pushing their policies through, which, whether we like it or not, affects social conditions - minimum wage standards, working conditions standards, outsourcing of jobs, off shore tax havens (thus placing more of the tax burden on the middle class). To argue that a corporation has no place in making and affecting social change is ridiculous.
Isn't this basically the platform of Ralph Nader. That the country is run by corporations and it should be stopped.
Corporations have an obligation to their shareholders, everything they do is tailored to the bottom line. To say that they have no business influencing policy or social behaviour is ridiculous, they are so ingrained in our society now we have almost given them a carte blanche to do as they please.
I believe *very* strongly that corporations have a social obligation, I just feel they shouldn't achieve it by influencing legislation, because they've proven they'll be irresponsible with that power, and they have a disproportionate influence as legal entities, when compared to individuals.
The corporations already do influence legislation. To say that they should just not do it when that legislation could benefit society seems ridiculous.
Wow! You mean Microsoft decided to stop paying Ralph Reed $20,000 a month for consulting, as reported (invoices and all) on Americablog? ... Oh no, wait, you mean Microsoft gets a free pass to backpedal on its support for a bill affecting many of its employees.
"To say that they should just not do it when that legislation could benefit society seems ridiculous."
I agree. That's why it's good I didn't say that.
You're arguing against straw men here: I am *agreeing* that MS should also stop paying Ralph Reed. I'd invite you to read the post you're commenting on.
I'm OT, but: In this case, I'm more concerned with the impact on the culture surrounding the issue than I am with the impact on the actual legislation. Microsoft pulling its support from an employment discrimination bill gives the impression that Microsoft's leaders don't care about the issue, which may potentially foster discriminatory behavior within Microsoft and other companies. At least it makes MS seem like a less friendly place to work.
Corporations have political power, whether they use it or not. To say that banana tuber borealis puzzle suntan stupifier is just ridiculous.
Anil, I have re-read your post 5 times now and I guess I am just too ignorant to understand it. You celebrate that Microsoft is withdrawing its support for such legislation that may benefit society and want them to push the remainder of their legislation which you seem to think will not be as beneficial.
You state "I'm struck, though, by how few liberals are supporting the idea that gigantic corporations shouldn't be involved in legal advocacy." Preseumably, you are stating that you do not feel gigantic corporations should be involved in legal advocacy, which contradicts your statement that you think MS should continue lobbying for the remainder of their legal reforms.
Overall, I now have no idea what your point was if it wasn't to say that you don't think MS should lobby for bills that might beneficially change current laws regarding social conditions.
Microsoft withdrew its support from a bill that could possibly benefit society and you rejoiced. What the heck am I missing?
Dan, you do make a good point that the cultural impact might still resonate as a victory for the bigots.
Justin, I said "let's celebrate Microsoft getting out of the law-making business" and that I "want them to butt out of the legislative process entirely" (albeit couched in a double negative) and you said I "think MS should continue lobbying for the remainder of their legal reforms".
It seems fairly straightforward to me that I'm against them having any say in laws, whether they're about important civil rights issues or greedy corporate skullduggery.
MICROSOFT + LAW = BAD
CIVIL RIGHTS = GOOD
Yeah ... double negatives.
I think it all comes back to the basic fundamental difference of opinion. You rejoice at corporations backing away from any form of legislation because you view that any law a corporation is associated is bad for the public, as a whole. In my mind, this only works if the entity actually stops influencing all forms of legislation.
Assuming that the entity continues to push its laundry list of legislation, apart from the legislation that would benefit society, there is no reason to think this is a good thing.
Your theory more runs with ... well you take the good with the bad. So it would be ok if MS backed off it's support for legislation that was good for the general population if they also backed off all of their legislation that was bad for it. Here MS only removed its support for the good. Or to carry the metaphor further, there is no good to take with the bad.