Are Corporations a Threat to Democracy?

[rory_20_uk]

And no, we don't always have a choice. Drug companies are a prime example, and military contractors are another. When you mix in the buddy system and corporate influence in campaigns and politics, it gets very ugly indeed.

Erm, call me biased, but for almost every condition there is more than one drug. Popular ones can have dozens all doing slightly different things.

Corporations can wield massive power especially over smaller states. In big ones generally the number of them will mean government is pulled in several directions and often balancing each other out (USA and healthcare is obviously an example where everyone is pulling in the same direction). Smaller states can be so dependent on a small number that they hold massive power over what is done, and as are often not motivated by "nice" principles will worsen the lot of the locals.

[KukriKhan]

Erm, call me biased, but for almost every condition there is more than one drug. Popular ones can have dozens all doing slightly different things.

Corporations can wield massive power especially over smaller states. In big ones generally the number of them will mean government is pulled in several directions and often balancing each other out (USA and healthcare is obviously an example where everyone is pulling in the same direction). Smaller states can be so dependent on a small number that they hold massive power over what is done, and as are often not motivated by "nice" principles will worsen the lot of the locals.

I was about to vote "No; no threat", until I read rory's answer. That got me thinking. Looking at it as a matter of scale, corporation size : democracy unit (State or Country), I can see that a large corporation could have a delterious effect on a smallish State. For example, what if Microsoft's HQ and production facilities were in Malta, a country of only 400K citizens (120K voters)?

That might skew/unduly influence policy and voting patterns in Malta, always in favor Big Daddy.

So, I'll soften my vote to "Leaning No", to recognize that it depends on context; where a corporation is.

[Pannonian]

Erm, call me biased, but for almost every condition there is more than one drug. Popular ones can have dozens all doing slightly different things.

Corporations can wield massive power especially over smaller states. In big ones generally the number of them will mean government is pulled in several directions and often balancing each other out (USA and healthcare is obviously an example where everyone is pulling in the same direction). Smaller states can be so dependent on a small number that they hold massive power over what is done, and as are often not motivated by "nice" principles will worsen the lot of the locals.

Comparable to landowners and rotten boroughs. The smaller the borough and the fewer the landowners, the more rotten the borough. Until you have the example of Dunny-on-the-Wold.