[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: Another View

Wabandco@aol.com wrote:

> >> Corporate sponsors do not contribute money to be nice. 
> >> Corporations 
>  have one purpose: to maximize profit for their investors.  If they
>  can create a positive impression about their organization by giving
>  money to some popular cause-of-the-moment, they'll do it,
>  especially if it takes some of the heat off of them for, say,
>  selling tobacco to children in the so-called Third World.<<
> This may come as a surprise, Larry, but not every corporation is in
> the business of selling tobacco to children. 

When did I say every corporation was?  Please provide an 
example.  By the way, though: guess which industry gives 
more money to charity than any other?  Here's a hint: cough for a 
few moments.

> And many corporations are owned and
> run by responsible human beings.  A corporation is nothing more than
> a legal fiction,

Having set up twenty-four corporations in four states last week, I can
only smile!

> an 'entity' created to hold assets and conduct business.  Most are
> small, owned by a few people who work at them and run them, and all
> 'behave' in accordance with the behaviour of those individuals.

I take it that you mean that small businesspeople run their 
businesses as they see fit, perhaps without exclusive regard for the
bottom line.  That may be true.  But if you're also saying that small
corporations set up exclusively to establish limited liability for a
few individuals donate *anything* like a substantial proportion of
corporate charitable contributions on a yearly basis,  I must point
out that this is sadly mistaken. 

I don't have numbers in front of me, but I'd wager that 80% or more of
the dollars contributed by corporations in the U.S. come from large
publicly-held corporations, where management is not held by those with
the primary ownership interest.  If the directors of such corporations
(or designated officers) make contributions to charities which will
not benefit the corporation in any way, they  are squandering the
money of the shareholders and are subject to being booted off the
board as they well know: it's not as if the shareholders don't know
what they're doing; the annual report generally carries information
regarding charitable contributions.

> Certainly, the directors of a business expect to have some positive
> result from such contributions.  But ...  if ALL they were looking
> for was image, they'd get much more "bang for their buck" if they
> spent it elsewhere.  Pure advertising pays off better.

This rationale doesn't work.  Contributions to charities hit a 
different market and hit from a different, much subtler, remarkably
effective  angle.

Spielberg's people made a huge deal out of his contributions to 
dinosaur science after JP was released.  Funny -- why hadn't he ever
donated any money to dinosaur science before?

> Dinosaur professionals might want to consider
> this for a moment:  how can you best get a business to contribute to
> your cause?  Which business is the right choice to solicit?  

They also might want to consider what they'll have to do to get the
money. Hopefully nothing.  But remember that The Dinosaur Society gets
a pantload of money from Spielberg. Haven't we all seen the results?

> Larry's beliefs
> notwithstanding, most businesses expect to pay out some amount of
> contributions to "worthy" causes each year; they look for things
> that relate to them.  

They seek out "worthy causes" that "relate to them."  Why need they
"relate to them?" So they can get effective exposure from the

>  <<And why shouldn't they ask?  If  the board of directors used
>  corporate funds to "do what is right," they would be betraying
>  their charge to serve the shareholders<<
> Your innuendo here that corporate activities are purely evil

Maximizing profits for the shareholders is purely evil?  You can't be

> As in all things, there is good and bad in the business world.  I
> have dealt with many of both sorts.  But your constant denigration
> of all business is tiresome.  You've watched too many episodes of
> the Captain Planet, I suspect.

When have I ever denigrated any business?  Examples please.

What's Captain Planet?

> In any event, I think this thread has exceeded it's limited purpose
> on this list, and I apologize for the tangent.

A curious comment in an on-list posting.  That by-now familiar beast
has shambled around the bend again: shout the last word then quickly
try to slam the door.


"Atheism: a non-prophet organization"