Corp. Publically owns 1/4 of Government (Scenario)

Solauren · Post by **Solauren** » 2005-03-15 12:33am

Two Part Scenario

#1- You are the head of a given level of government (see below). A Major corporation (at the level you are head of government, i.e if it's State level, a Major Corporation of the state) has offered to take on the responsiblity of 1/4 of the running of the government (and have the means to do so without threatening to bankrupt themselves), confined to specific sections of it
(i.e If the major sections of the government where Judicial, Military, Financial, Trade, they'd take over say Financial). This includes becoming legally responsible for 1/4 of the dept your level of government has, as well as providing and additional 33% to the budget beyond what the government would have without them (including the fact the corporation now pays 1/4 of all government employee's salaries). so that 1/4 of the month in the budget is from them.

What they want in exchange is: A permenant 25% of the vote in government. This could be handing them 1/4 of the current seats in government permanently and resuffling current boundaries, or simply adding 33% more virutal seats (of that if the government had 75 seats, you add 25 more, to give the corporation 25% of the seats)

The lawyers for boths sides, etc, have all checked into this, and it is legal. There is nothing to prevent it except a vote to say no. The level of government you are at all abstains, and it's in yours hands

So, what do you say as the head of the
City Government?
State Government?
National Government?

Scenario 2:
You are a citizen. What would you reaction be to this happening at each level? There are literally hundreds of checks to make sure the corporation can't use there new found political power to bother other corporations (i.e they can't vote on laws of that nature)

Melchior · Post by **Melchior** » 2005-03-15 09:53am

If it wasn't useful them (meaning that they can't evade the checks and balances) they wouldn't bother.
So I say no.

lPeregrine · Post by **lPeregrine** » 2005-03-15 03:05pm

Why not? They don't have a majority to force through laws, they can't vote on issues if there's a conflict of interest, and they can't even have the most useful 25% of the government. And in return we get a massive tax cut and/or paying off the national debt very quickly (producing a massive tax cut). Sounds like a pretty good deal to me.

White Haven · Post by **White Haven** » 2005-03-15 03:11pm

There is no free lunch. If they want to ensure control over 25 percent of the vote, it's likely because they have EFFECTIVE control over another quarter somewhere else.

lPeregrine · Post by **lPeregrine** » 2005-03-15 05:57pm

Why would they bother? By the conditions of the agreement, their votes don't count if the issue is related to their company. If they can buy 25% of the votes on issues that benefit them, they'd be better off buying another 25% instead of wasting the money on taking over management of the government to get some limited-use votes.

Mr. T · Post by **Mr. T** » 2005-03-16 01:44pm

I'll have to agree with what's already been said. No corporation with the amount of money to be capable of purchasing a government would be dumb enough to agree to terms that prevent it from taking any sort of advantage of its new found position.

Melchior · Post by **Melchior** » 2005-03-16 02:14pm

lPeregrine wrote:Why would they bother? By the conditions of the agreement, their votes don't count if the issue is related to their company. If they can buy 25% of the votes on issues that benefit them, they'd be better off buying another 25% instead of wasting the money on taking over management of the government to get some limited-use votes.

This is the reason because of which I suspect that there must be something shady going on.
What is their motive?

lPeregrine · Post by **lPeregrine** » 2005-03-16 03:41pm

Melchior wrote:
lPeregrine wrote:Why would they bother? By the conditions of the agreement, their votes don't count if the issue is related to their company. If they can buy 25% of the votes on issues that benefit them, they'd be better off buying another 25% instead of wasting the money on taking over management of the government to get some limited-use votes.
This is the reason because of which I suspect that there must be something shady going on.
What is their motive?

Looking for a good investment perhaps? Does the initial post's conditions prevent the corporation from keeping the money if they manage to run their branch of government efficiently enough to turn it into a net profit?

But the problem is, what shady could be going on? They are clearly banned from using their 25% of the votes in any decision that could benefit them. Maybe they just want a voice in politics in exchange for all their efforts, but that's not too much of a change from how it works now anyway.

Melchior · Post by **Melchior** » 2005-03-16 05:08pm

lPeregrine wrote: But the problem is, what shady could be going on? They are clearly banned from using their 25% of the votes in any decision that could benefit them. Maybe they just want a voice in politics in exchange for all their efforts, but that's not too much of a change from how it works now anyway.

If they have a voice, they can use it to their benefit.

Solauren · Post by **Solauren** » 2005-03-16 05:28pm

Yes, if they can make there branch of the government turn a profit, they can keep it.

So, if they find a way to say increase transit profits without increasing price or decreasing salary or anything like that, they'd get 1/4 of the profits

lPeregrine · Post by **lPeregrine** » 2005-03-16 06:25pm

So there's your motivation, no need for suspicious motives from the company. The government is horribly inefficient right now, so it's a valid idea to think that a corporation could invest in it for the potential profit alone.

Jalinth · Post by **Jalinth** » 2005-03-16 08:02pm

lPeregrine wrote:So there's your motivation, no need for suspicious motives from the company. The government is horribly inefficient right now, so it's a valid idea to think that a corporation could invest in it for the potential profit alone.

What profit? To have a profit, the company needs to get revenue. Governments don't generate significant revenue (as in - cash for goods/services). That is the reason taxes exist (cash w/o any direct link).

The only way that a company could obtain a profit in this situation is if they received a specific pot of money (such as 20% of the total government revenue in return for 25% of the expenses). And then could keep any savings they might produce.

Solauren · Post by **Solauren** » 2005-03-16 10:06pm

Which is something they could do.

Also, think about the political power.

That's 25% of the vote PERIOD. No matter what happens in an election.

It would be very very easy to make a behind the scences deal with a political party and have them pass laws to help you