Not sure I follow this part. I think businesses can spend their money on what they want as long as it's legal and allowed by their own laws. But I don't like how businesses can buy political support. The goals of a business may be antithetic to what's good for society. Of course, not always. But sometimes.
LGDB: What I'm saying is that in order for us to change laws such that businesses can't do certain things that they would otherwise do (like pay workers whatever they'd want, not pay overtime, fire workers for whatever reasons they'd like), we have to actually be against those things in the first place. Which means if we're having a conversation about a business practice, it's not enough to say "well is it legal?" We also have to ask "should it be legal." We both agree that businesses should be allowed to spend money on whatever they're legally permitted to, I'm just saying I think what they should be able to spend their money on (and how much value they should allowed to extract from their workers) should be stringently limited.
I don't have a problem with businesses standing up to lawmakers if lawmakers propose a law or regulation that's a bad idea. A lot of times, regulations and laws can be genuinely bad ideas, and business should weigh in on that. But I don't like the thought that they can ensure certain things don't get done by buying a vote.
LGDB: Yeah, I mean ostensibly the idea is that everyone should have a say in a democracy, but the business owners shouldn't have a greater say than anyone else in society. And because unavoidably there are more workers than business owners by orders of magnitude, business owners should have much less say than their workers.
---the late great Donald Blake
I think we agree. We should ask "what should
be allowed?" There are things that are allowed that shouldn't be in my opinion. But the likelihood of them changing is low.