given a fiduciary duty to maximize shareholder value, what is a corporate campaign contribution?

[unblock]

logically speaking, how can a corporate campaign contribution not be intended as a bribe?

let's pretend the politician is a pure as falling snowflakes so and can't be swayed in any way, so there's no quid pro quo and no ACTUAL bribe.

but the corporation has to have MEANT it to be a bribe. otherwise, how is it maximizing shareholder value? there has to be some thought that they would profit more from making the donation than by not. it's not enough to conclude that one politician is better than the other, because the option of keeping the money is certainly a viable alternative. if the politician they prefer would win anyway, they could save money by not contributing. same if he would lose regardless. in the absence of a quid pro quo, there has to be an expectation that that corporate contribution (and in the given amount) was reasonably likely to be a deciding factor. otherwise they're just throwing shareholder value away.

but that's really threading the needle. we all know the reality is that corporations give -- sometimes to BOTH SIDE of the same election -- to make sure the winner feels beholden to them, so they'll be more inclined to insert a loophole or call off a nosy regulator.

but that would be illegal, so we'll just pretend it's not a bribe.

but then we're back to -- what is it, exactly?

[nanabugg]

1. Wow!! Never thought of it that way, but you are correct. nt

[cherokeeprogressive]

2. Couldn't the same thing be said about campaign donations from labor unions?

[unblock]

5. which part? that campaign contributions really are bribes, sure.

labor unions don't have the same fiduciary duty that corporations have, so that aspect of my o.p. doesn't apply as neatly.
but yes, one could still make that argument.

generally speaking, all campaign contributions are problematic in this sense, though less so the smaller they get. individuals writing $25 checks are unlikely to ever get a senator's ear, and that ear is unlikely to be swayed by such chump change, so it's more plausible to take it to be something other than a bribe.

not so for large corporate contributions. more important, though, they can't really make the argument that they're just expressing their free speech opinion (notwithstanding the citizen's united rationale) because simply spouting off a corporate opinion isn't acting in the shareholders' interests. there HAS to be some profit angle in there.

individuals don't have that requirement, and i don't believe labor unions do either.

[annabanana]

3. Interesting perspective..

. . worth developing.

A corporation has a strictly, legally, fiduciary obligation. The obligations of a Union to it's members is a bit more complex.

[Old and In the Way]

4. A contibution could be a ROI if the politician you are buying wins.

Corporation investment in our politics has to be considered an investment with an expectation of future pay-offs. For a corporation to invest in a losing candidate's campaign ought to be considered a wasted investment....and the stockholders should demand accountability,

[unblock]

6. but contributing to a shoo-in has no real corporate rationale other than bribery.

if the politician was going to win anyway, you get the result you want without having to part with shareholders' money.
that only costs you if the winning politician is "somehow" less valuable to the corporation without having received that contribution. i.e., if the contribution was a bribe after all and no paying it failed to maximize shareholder value.

[Old and In the Way]

8. I don't disagree with your point.

Bribery, from a corporate rationale, would still be considered a good investment, though.

[immoderate]

7. Highest dollar return on investment.

--imm