Toyota dropping political contributions to some Republicans

[geordief]

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-57773010

 

About 50 Republicans who voted against accepting the result of the General election,it seems.

 

On balance is this a good developments or will it fuel what seems like a grievance culture?

 

Seems like desperate times for Democracy in USA.So vital the anti democratic forces do not get another foothold in the institutions of power in the coming elections .

 

Can they be headed off at the pass?

 

 

According to the story

"Toyota has said it will halt donations to members of the US Congress who voted against certification of President Biden's election victory."

 

Edited July 9, 2021 by geordief
Adding description of the link

[iNow]

10 minutes ago, geordief said:

Can they be head off at the pass?

Not if Republican state legislators with their redistricting, gerrymandering, and hundreds KC bills making voting far harder / making it easier to prosecute election workers for nonissues / eliminating vote by mail / reducing the number of polling places and shortening voting hours, etc. have anything to say about it 

Edited July 9, 2021 by iNow

[MigL]

Seems like a sensible thing to do, as those Republicans voted to undermine democracy in the US, yet at the same time, it is further politicising everything American ( if you consider Toyota American ).
Which is what got the US in such a mess to begin with.

[geordief]

The standard explanation for funding both (why not all?) parties is that it supports democracy in the round.

It seems unfair to me that big corporations should be able to tip their hat one way but one can only fight one war at a time.

If there is a possibility that the anti democratic forces win this  next engagement what plans are there  for the morning after ?(or is Biden a strong bulwark?)

Edited July 9, 2021 by geordief

[Phi for All]

With only two major political parties, corporations probably have a better chance of representing Americans on specific stances. I would applaud any major company that announced they would no longer support candidates using fascist tactics like the 50 Republicans above. Pepsi should denounce Mitch McConnel and FOX News for their hypocrisy in wondering why more Americans won't get vaccinated. And wouldn't it be great if Wal-Mart or Amazon stopped donating to Q-Anon candidates, and instead called for some reasonableness?

[zapatos]

1 hour ago, geordief said:

The standard explanation for funding both (why not all?) parties is that it supports democracy in the round.

 

They didn't say they weren't funding both parties. They said they weren't funding those individuals who did NOT support democracy. Seems Toyota's decision is right in line with the standard explanation of supporting democracy in the round.

1 hour ago, geordief said:

It seems unfair to me that big corporations should be able to tip their hat one way but one can only fight one war at a time.

 

What about individuals? Should they be able to tip their hat one way, or does the "unfairness" only apply to corporations?

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

And wouldn't it be great if Wal-Mart or Amazon stopped donating to Q-Anon candidates, and instead called for some reasonableness?

But this is a business decision. I suspect Toyota looked at who might boycott them and extrapolated what would happen to sales. And Wal-Mart would do the same if they were tempted to announce some similar move.  

 

[geordief]

19 minutes ago, zapatos said:

They didn't say they weren't funding both parties. They said they weren't funding those individuals who did NOT support democracy. Seems Toyota's decision is right in line with the standard explanation of supporting democracy in the round.

I wasn't necessarily applying that explanation to Toyota in particular.It was   more a summation of what I have learned about the practice ,which so far as I know is confined to the USA.

 

22 minutes ago, zapatos said:

What about individuals? Should they be able to tip their hat one way, or does the "unfairness" only apply to corporations?

Indeed I see the political influence of corporations extremely differently to that of individuals.In my bones I am against it as essentially undemocratic.

 

In the UK the great argument against the Labour Party was that it was beholden to the Unions.

And the contrast may be between the Trades Unions and the Corporations.Which is more democratic in your eyes?

[zapatos]

22 minutes ago, geordief said:

I wasn't necessarily applying that explanation to Toyota in particular.It was   more a summation of what I have learned about the practice ,which so far as I know is confined to the USA.

It would still apply to all companies who deselect candidates who vote against democracy.

23 minutes ago, geordief said:

Indeed I see the political influence of corporations extremely differently to that of individuals.

 

Unfortunately in the US corporations are not seen differently than individuals. 

[geordief]

12 minutes ago, zapatos said:

36 minutes ago, geordief said:

 

It would still apply to all companies who deselect candidates who vote against democracy

Sure but I am in two minds.I agree with their assessment (if they have said this) that they are no longer giving funds to actors who are fundamentally anti democratic but I don't agree they should be in such a position in the first place.

 

I understand (from  very weak understanding) that powerful corporations were a mainstay of fascist regimes in the past and am not kindly disposed to their unregulated  behaviour.

[TheVat]

A larger solution to ending plutocracy (as well as kakistocracy) in the US is campaign finance reform.   All candidates,  at all levels,  are given equal airtime,  preferably in a debate format,  with bad faith arguments and lies challenged by moderators.   Attack ads are banned.   People run on the merits of their policy ideas,  not on their knack for slandering opponents and fear-mongering.   

Otherwise we are headed for minority rule,  bankrolled by Koch Industries, and their ilk.     

[iNow]

1 minute ago, TheVat said:

A larger solution to ending plutocracy (as well as kakistocracy) in the US is campaign finance reform. 

And the larger problem is that the people we need to implement such a change are the very same ones benefiting from its absence. 

[ScienceNostalgia101]

How the hell were politicians even allowed accepting campaign contributions from companies headquartered in foreign countries in the first place?

 

I mean, by rights, they shouldn't be allowed accepting campaign contributions from domestic companies either, but foreign companies? How was that not stomped out if only by public pressure from corporate-power opponents from the left and globalization opponents from the right combined?

 

EDIT: To be fair, I get that a lot of people have a soft spot for Japan in particular because anime's cuteness tugs at people's heartstrings, but that never stopped them from opposing the Japanese whale hunt, or criticizing the way Japan gets a pass for its own xenophobia, so I'm not sure why an exception would be carved for them on this one.

Edited July 16, 2021 by ScienceNostalgia101

[swansont]

9 hours ago, ScienceNostalgia101 said:

How the hell were politicians even allowed accepting campaign contributions from companies headquartered in foreign countries in the first place?

Did this happen?

(Hint:Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. is a US company, now headquartered in Plano, TX

I lived in Canada for a few years and had trouble getting an auto bought in the US getting warranty service because the US company and Canadian company were different entities)

[ScienceNostalgia101]

3 hours ago, swansont said:

Did this happen?

(Hint:Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. is a US company, now headquartered in Plano, TX

I lived in Canada for a few years and had trouble getting an auto bought in the US getting warranty service because the US company and Canadian company were different entities)

Is it at all affiliated with its Japanese counterpart, though? If not, why use the name?

[swansont]

5 minutes ago, ScienceNostalgia101 said:

Is it at all affiliated with its Japanese counterpart, though? If not, why use the name?

Seriously?

Brand recognition 

[ScienceNostalgia101]

"Brand recognition" through the name of a foreign company?

 

How did that not piss off the same tens of millions of voters who were xenophobic enough to vote Trump?