In the recent Corporations Power case (the take over of industrial relations for workchoices) - the High Court specifically pointed out that the framers of federation were fully aware of the corporation and its role.

The myths of the corporation as a risk venture (versus a going concern), as a single person rather than a literal ‘company’ of merchants, the capitalisation being real rather than a ‘$2′ company - all these myths had been laid to rest by the 1890s.

There were plenty of ‘fictious’ companies in the mediaeval sense by the 1890s, and there was emerging corporations law as a result of bank collapses and shady types prior to the 1890s depression.

Hence the Constitutional delegates were well aware of the power of the modern corporation.

Yet they didn’t see fit to offer the corporation the vote!

Legal persons maybe, definitely not persons of the body politic.

I have some sympathy for the view that in a representative pseudo-democratic system like ours, bad government is still bad government no matter its cause, corporate donations or otherwise. If it is bad it should be voted out.

In general I sheet the blame in roughly equal proportions to poorly educated and low intelligence electorate (including the pool from which pollies are drawn), poor media coverage of the issues, and the influence of money.

And these factors tend to bleed into each other a bit - a poorly educated and low intelligence electorate does not demand media scrutiny (prefering Schappel and Shane), and a dim-witted electorate is unreasonably seduced by the sight of money (unrelated to any actual need for same).

This is something Lefties and Righties would hopefully agree on - in the presence of rich men - the Turnbulls or Packers or whoever - do we need to tremble?

If we respectfully admire their ability to make money without letting it overwhelm our own senses, their capacity to unreasonably influence the political process is diminished.

As a decision maker, if I can look objectively at small business man A and his proposal to develop a small bit of land he has, and not be overwhelmed by big business man Rupert M who has a conflicting case for the same piece of land, because I’m a well-adjusted person who’s not insecure in the face of money, then there is no problem with the system.

I suspect it is an analogy to the “Those that can, do, those who can’t, teach” ie “Those who can make money through enterprise do, those who can’t, become rent-seeking pollies who extort it off them”

And you get the same car, driver, big house, corner office and thousands of staff for free, that the businessman gets but earns through enterprise and initiative.

governments are not accountable to [companies]

That is the funniest thing I’ve read in a long time, and you don’t have to live in Sydney to find it so.

Perhaps, like the bond market was to James Carville, MNCs represent a faceless scapegoat for why governments cannot fulfil all of their promises.