Businesses and elections

2024 will be a big year for global elections – and with elections, come campaigns that try to convince people about how to vote. In many countries there are laws that prevent businesses and brands from directly supporting one candidate over another.

Nike-3

However, businesses can still encourage their staff and customers to go to the polls – and many will.

For example, in the last presidential election in America, Nike created a campaign reminding people to have their say, and a fashion brand, Banana Republic, printed clothes with reminders to vote.

Patagonia

Businesses can also share an opinion about particular policies.

For example, in 2020 clothing brand Patagonia sewed a tag into its clothes that told people to vote out any politician or party that was not doing enough to fight climate change.

Comments (158)

You must be logged in with Student Hub access to post a comment. Sign up now!

  • I think that businesses are allowed to encourage people to vote in an election Business has a political responsibility to encourage employees to vote. Despite the fact that the United States is the largest, most powerful and longest continuously existing democracy in the world, many Americans do not vote. And no one can blame them for that because that‘s they‘re opinion. Also i think that businesses are allowed to share opinions about policies because it‘s everyone‘s right to share they‘re opinion even if its business.

    1. Hello, rational_salak.
      I concede with your comment because voting is an important civic right and duty, businesses have a political culpability and obligation to ensure that employees participate in elections.
      So, I personally believe that businesses should be allowed to encourage people in participating in elections because it can promote civic engagement and help employees value social and civic responsibilities.
      Also, businesses should be allowed to openly participate/support one candidate over another and also should be allowed to share their opinions about policies relating to politics because I believe that everyone has their opinions on who they want to give the mandate to, but they shouldn't openly spend politically because it could encourage corruption.
      Thank you!!!

      1. Hello!!! @wondrous_mode,
        I am in agreement with all your points you have stated, except the point you have stated about businesses voting for a specific person, this may be seen by people who don't want to vote for that candidate to see it as partiality and may protest against this action, many may take it deep and even be enemies with those who work with the business and the supporters of that specific party, this may lead to wars within the borders of a country, which causes chaos even before the election. Also if people vote for a specific candidate because a company they like is in support of that candidate, they may make the wrong decision on that leader, the people may regret their decision and that business will be hated because the citizens will see that business as the source of their problem which makes the business to wither and die off. This entails that businesses should be careful with their actions in politics.
        In conclusion, in as much as businesses can perform other actions such as, dealing with poverty and peace making, they should be careful to say opinions during an election.
        THANK YOU.

        1. Every individual has the right to franchise and freedom to expression, right? Is this different or meant to be different with businesses as a whole? Businesses are a group of individuals meaning they can still vote, be voted for and express their selves. If celebrities can be the face of a business, why not candidates in an election? I mean, they are celebrities of the election, aren't they? Businesses have a right to vote and support whom soever they wish to.
          Businesses encourage voting as a sign of patriotism and a way to attract the attention of more consumers. They remind us of good utilization of our rights and civic duties. If we as citizens do not vote and a government we dislike comes into power, who is to blame?
          In conclusion, being part of a business doesn't restrict your right to franchise.
          Thank you.

      2. I can relate to what you are saying. As employees should be allowed to vote in elections, employers have the right to as well. They are citizens too. But i believe it is wrong to influence another persons decision so that it can turn out in your favor. Influential businesses can easily manipulate the masses to take actions that will benefit them in the end. Some politician might even make deals with the owners of the businesses to make use of their influence without being noticed by the masses. I believe that everyone should be allowed to vote individually on their own accord and not under the influence of others whether employers or employees alike.

    2. I disagree because... I f
      think businesses should not join politics as they are support can sway people's votes based on popularity not the candidate ability. People might vote for a well-known brand not the right person. These affects choices as individuals might pick the brand they like not the best candidate. This interference is risky as it can lead to the wrong choice for the people. Therefore, businesses should focus on their products and services rather than influencing political decisions.

      1. I agree because...
        Yes if businesses were involved in politics people will be forced to favour their favourite brand or a vert well known brand.
        And this can lead to a lot of damages like if the right candidates were not chosen it can lead to favourability, racism, and can even get to the point of damaging the country economy.
        So i also feel that businesses should not join the politics.

        Thank you.

        1. I agree with this point because brands have been known to influence consumers opinions as people are influenced when big brands. They love promote things like if some big brand started to promote the idea of maybe a game and they have themed products everywhere then the consumer will unknowingly learn to like this game and be influenced it to buy it. Now imagine this if a brand was bribed in a political way then the person would be voted for unfairly with public influence over normal day to day people. In concloution companies should not have any say in political views due to widespread propaganda shown through many cases over the years.

          1. Can you give some examples of the cases you mention where companies have spread propaganda? What sources did you use to find these examples?

            1. I have an awesome example.
              Disney.
              During World War II (1941-1945), Disney engaged in the production of propaganda films for the U.S. gouvernement.
              Disney had already gained popularity from the production of other films like Snow White and the Seven Dwarves, therefore when Disney produced propaganda films it helped the U.S. government gain support for the war.
              As you can see a company/brand that has a huge influence and viewer/consumer demographic are prone to impact the decisions of their customers/consumers.
              P.S. I got this info from a YouTube and Wikipedia.

      2. precious swan
        I agree because... You have made good points and I will like to add to it, businesses should not be allowed to support any candidate in election or to convince costumers to vote for any candidate because this can cause a big problem in the society. Let me take Nigeria for example, if businesses should be allowed to support a candidate it can result in costumer reduction for the business and again it can cause riot between the citizens and the business workers and owners. It can also cause the close down of the business if the candidate that is supported did not make it to the office and the other one gets there.
        In conclusion, if businesses are to be allowed to support a candidate it should be done secretly between the company and the electoral commission.

        1. I disagree because...they can only encourage the citizens to vote for someone, because it's the responsibility of the citizen to decide on who to vote for.

          1. I agree with you because it is the business's duty to encourage while the people choose whether to vote or not, therefore the business should not be certain if the people will vote

        2. Thanks for giving this interesting example from your own country, cherished_dragonfruit. What disadvantages do you think there might be in a system where businesses can exercise political influence in secret?

          1. I don't think there will be any disadvantage for the business owners if they exercise their influence in secret.

      3. I do not really agree with your argument because every one has their freedom of choice so if that person decides to vote for someone that a brand is supporting do you think you the company should be blamed, because the electorate was not compelled, let’s say I decided to vote for that company because Gucci is speaking in favor of that person it’s my choice because I love Gucci so the electorates choice is not forced on the person but it done out of free will and in a case where the candidate they are supporting is speaking in favor of their company for example a the candidate in question is speaking for introduction of solar energy and your a solar panel producing company and knowing fully well that if you support that person your business is likely to expand at a large pace if that candidate win then obviously you would speak in favor of that person. Don’t you think businesses should have a say in what will be beneficial for them company.
        If the company have a say it will cause expansion of their business so I don’t think there should be silenced because of other factors

        1. Hi there, thanks for sharing and interesting arguments.

          If business were allowed to endorse political candidates how do you think these business would select who they support? And conversely, how would politicians pick who they want to be endorsed by?

          I’d love to hear your thought?

          1. In my opinion, businesses would endorse political candidates based on their political experience and capability to improve the economy. They would want to choose candidates who are likely to make positive changes and support their business interests.
            Politicians, on the other hand, would want to choose people who will give them positive reviews to the public. For example, a politician with a dark secret would avoid choosing someone who knows about the secret and is trying to expose it.

          2. They would choose a candidate based on those that person would promote their company if they come to power

      4. I agree with you and I concur that people tend to vote for and follow their favorite brands, which is not and cannot be the correct thing to do. Instead, we should follow the right leaders and act morally because bringing businesses into politics runs the risk of endangering society and swaying people's opinions.

      5. I concur because companies should concentrate on providing their services rather than getting involved in politics, which could lead to a great deal of anxiety during an election. For instance, Nike developed a campaign encouraging people to vote and to wear clothes with voting reminders. This is an effective strategy for motivating people who enjoy or support a specific brand to cast their ballots, but when a brand enters the political sphere, it may lead some consumers to choose to support that brand's candidate of choice over another. Consequently, I believe that companies should not be permitted to meddle in political affairs.
        AWARENESS FOR CORRECTIONS
        Regards

      6. Very good points you have there precious_swan. But i have a question. Is it possible that a business can influence other peoples decisions unknowingly? For example, if you are the owner of a really well known and successful business and you go out to vote for a particular candidate, won't your fans or admirers decide to vote for that same candidate? They might not even know much about the candidate, they just feel like you know best because you are successful and your products are spot on. Influence can make a person noticeable even when they don't even want to be. It can attract unwanted attention and everything you do will be all over the internet before the end of the day. A celebrity is still a citizen and so has the right to vote and to an extent participate in political activities such as voting in their country. I agree that businesses shouldn't influence others but businesses are made up of individuals who still have rights and duties and sometimes the reputation of the business can rub off on these individuals. Is it possible for a celebrity to do something that is related to politics without influencing the decisions of other people?

        1. I disagree because... Everyone has the right to vote air out their views in an election because we are all citizens of a country who are of age to vote for a particular person. And also business are not trying to influence citizens to vote for are particular party or person, they only encourage them to vote for someone, it's left for the citizens to decide on who they would like to vote for.

      7. I'm not sure about this because...
        Do you know that for encouraging people to vote it's also a source of income for businesses?

        1. Interesting ideas. Can you tell us where you found your evidence? How do businesses make money from encouraging people to vote?

      8. Actually, all what you have said can be true but I still disagree because why you might ask? my reason is because the sole aim of brands telling the people to vote is to give them the awareness to remember to vote so as during they could be a new leader, so actually the wrong selection of a leader depends on the fault of the people not the brand because there main aim is to keep them aware so as they can vote like for instance Nike (brand) told the Americans or rather gave them the awareness to vote during election not to vote for a particular person but for them to remember to vote because some people who buys from them (the business brands) seeing that they are not interested in the election so why should I (customers) vote.
        So in conclusion, what I am trying to say is that the aim of a business brand is to give the people the awareness to vote during not technically to vote for a particular person during the election. Thanks.

      9. I completely disagree with you because...
        Business brands can encourage its customers to vote for them because it is their duty but the customers has the right whether to agree or disagree to vote for the brand. Forcing the customers to vote for their brands when they do not want to is just like violating their rights. And the brands can be punished by the law for this because everyone has a freedom to vote for any brand he or she priorities. Therefore I do not agree with you. Thanks.

      10. I agree because business involvement in politics can indeed lead to unexpected consequences. While businesses aim to earn profits, it's crucial to separate business interests from political affairs. Decisions in politics should prioritize experience and competence rather than popularity or financial incentives. A fair and unbiased approach is essential for societal development and avoiding conflicts. It's important to maintain a balance where the merit of individuals is considered over external influences in political processes or not .Thank you!

      11. I understand how u feel about your comment or decision precious swan but here is what I want to know, do you really think it's the right thing to stop business from voting? Do you think it my be a deprivation of right?

      12. I agree because... The brand affects the choice of an individual. And also, they can end up choosing the wrong candidate or party. The brand has it reason for requesting people to vote for the party or candidate. You have your own reasons for thinking that the person is not the best choice. So, we have to stand and decide for yourself and don't allow others to make a decision for you.
        THANKS FOR YOUR TIME.IF THERE IS CORRECTION I CAN'T WAIT TO BE CORRECTED!

        1. Thank you for sharing your perspectives on the influence of endorsements and the importance of making independent decisions. Both essays highlight the significance of critically evaluating options and not allowing external influences to dictate choices.

          Celebrity endorsements play a substantial role in modern marketing strategies, often leading to increased profits for companies due to the association of celebrities with their endorsed products. These endorsements can evoke emotional responses from consumers and influence their attitudes and purchase intentions, particularly among younger demographics like Millennials.

          However, while celebrity endorsements can impact initial buying behavior and brand awareness, consumers need to conduct their own research and base decisions on personal values rather than solely relying on endorsements. Taking ownership of decisions and not being swayed by external influences is key to making informed choices.

          In conclusion, your contributions underscore the importance of individual agency and critical thinking in navigating the influence of endorsements and brands. Thank you for your insightful input into the discussion. If you have any further inquiries or require feedback, please don't hesitate to reach out.

      13. Why I think so is because for instance a business is walking together with a particular person on Contesting for a particular position in the government, and if the business encourage the people to vote for the person and if he or she eventually wins the election later on, because of the effort and risk the business had put to encourage people to vote for the person, the person would reward the business with money or popularity.
        Thanks

    3. I totally disagree with you because everyone has an equal saying to what the politicians might do after winning the elections in that case everyone should know what is good for them and to vote who they think might contribute to the development of
      their country and.
      In my opinion no business should support one candidate or the other because its not like you know them personally you know what the do and what they don't so you shouldn't praise someone over the other because you might actually not know their habits if they are two sided or something else.

      Lastly everyone should be allowed to share their opinions not only businesses because we all are the citizens and we live there and we all want the best for our countries and everyone has a different point of view so everyone needs to say something that will improve their countries security, change their problem and also climate crisis and everyone wants the best for the country.

    4. I agree with you and I also believe business should have the freedom to openly support candidates. However, they should also consider potential impact on. Their employees and customers. Openly supporting one candidates over the other can have a potential impact on their employees and customers, Potentially leading to conflict. It might also create a perception of bias and affect, the company’s reputation. It is important for Businesses to navigate this with transparency and fairness. Ultimately is a balancing act. Between freedom of expression and maintaining a neutral business environment. They should also be mindful of how their support might affect their reputation and customer base. Some customers may appreciate knowing where a business stands, while others may prefer neutrality. Striking a balance between expressing opinions and maintaining a welcoming environment is key. Though there might be contrasting opinions about this but this is what I this. What do you guys think 🤔😁.

    5. I vehemently agree with you rational salak because when people are encouraged to vote during election they will see the importance of voting for a leader. But in the case where there is individual differences the company should be able to analyze and finalize their decisions to become one. As a citizen citizens are also allowed to discuss about policies.

      1. I must say that your point is good polite pomegranate but my question is could you please throw more light on the fact that citizens are allowed to discuss about politics? How do you mean?

    6. I agree because... I believe businesses should be able to encourage people to vote because they have the same right to vote. There's no rule against it, and it's their opinion. No one should blame them for expressing it. Thank you for bringing up this point.

      1. I agree with you on the matter of voting itself, but I feel even with this they should not be allowed to openly show which candidate to vote, either to their employees or stakeholders.

        1. Thanks for sharing this, highspirited_concept. What about political debate in general? Do you think businesses should be allowed to say publicly what they think of a government's or candidate's actions or ideas?

          1. In all honesty I feel sharing the actions of a candidate is good, aslong as it's not blackmailing, because if they share the actions of that candidate it would help the general population to properly analyse their decision of whether or not that person deserves their vote.

    7. What if the owner of the business is only encouraging people to vote because of the gain they would get, and in the process a bad president has been elected and that would affect the country or state.

    8. dear rational_salak, you said that businesses should be allowed to tell people to vote for a particular person....
      Don't you think that some of the companies customers dislike the candidate that the company choses as their candidate?

    9. I agree with your views. Since companies boost voter turnout, provide additional reasons to support candidates and highlight qualities that a president should possess, I think they should be permitted to encourage people to cast ballots in elections. I believe that the first way they can raise the number of voters is by encouraging their clients and employees to cast their ballots for the candidates they support. Additionally, they can also inscribe vote on a product bearing their brand. In addition, businesses may include factors such as the candidate's speech to persuade voters to choose the appropriate candidate.
      Finally, as most businesses are typically more credible than individuals, this will help to increase the voting populace.

    10. I'm not sure about this because... if you say that businesses are allowed to encourage people to vote in an election. what if the business is encouraging the people to vote for a particular candidate, now my question is what will the other candidate do to earn their favor and their vote?

    11. I agree with your very precise and valid perspective. People should be entitled to vote in elections as responsible and compliant citizens and of course businesses have every right to encourage them or even a specific candidate into taking part in elections, stating their view freely and go after their political privileges.

    12. I strongly agree as businesses should be allowed to express themselves politically. Sharing your political views as a business is a way to encourage your costumers to vote; this also helps younger people get involved politically or be interested in knowing what's going on in the political world. It also can bring in more customers as they might agree with your perspective.

    13. I understand this point but i disagree with it because yes businesses can encorouge people vote which is a good opinion spreader but the company could manipulate the consumers opinion. For example is a company like lets say starbucks was doing a promotion for voting for a president then had it everywhere from cups to paper then the consumer might be convinced vote for that person not for their opinion but for companys morals. This would manipulate thousands to vote companys behalf making it a bit unfair under the goodness presented.

    14. I can't realy agree eith you. If businesses encourage people to vote won't the people think that the business is voting just to make money? because if the business encourage people vote the business will already be advertised

    15. I agree but i want to add on.If business say that you should vote for that person some people who support them that don't vote might start voting because they are following their favorite brand or company

    16. I thoughtfully concur with you rational salak. Businesses can encourage their customers to vote for them as far as they don't force them to do so because there is no law against it. And it is now left for the individuals to decide whether to vote for the business or not. In addition, I would say that businesses should respect the rights of the customers when doing this.
      Thanks

    17. I agree because... Everyone has a right to vote,and you must not force anyone to vote for hm/her because we all have the right to vote for anyone we like,no one should force us because we might feel pressurised and no one wants to feel uncomfortable in their own country.

    18. Even though your points are great , I have a question to pose , If businesses share opinions on different candidates and end up supporting a specific candidate will that not be unfair to the other possible candidates because of the influence the business has?
      Eg. If Nike or McDonalds supports a specific candidate for an election will this be fair to other candidate?

    19. I disagree, As a business,they dedicated to achieving there strategic goals and contributing positively to society.
      So what i'am trying to say is that bussiness should fucos on business and people should be free to .
      Our employees have the right to exercise their democratic rights, including voting, without any interference from the company.
      We commit to promoting a healthy work culture that respects individual choices and encourages employee engagement

      Much appreciated 👍 Hope you understand.

    20. I completely agree with you that businesses should have the ability to provide a platform for people to express their views and opinions, but they must maintain neutrality when it comes to supporting a particular candidate. As you rightly pointed out, businesses have a significant influence on people's lives, and their decisions can impact a large number of individuals. If a business openly supports a particular candidate, it can sway the opinions of its customers and employees, which is not fair to those who have different views.
      One example is McDonalds supporting a particular candidate over another because of its influence.

  • According to me, businesses should not be allowed to encourage people to vote because we have no idea if that's the company's actual choice or if someone is paying them to do so. I believe that many candidates would find it easier to pay these companies because they have a great influence on society.
    I think that businesses can give some hints about supporting a candidate but should not openly reveal it. As it might discourage the opposition candidate.
    Indeed businesses can share their opinion about policies as they are also citizen of the same country so they have the whole right to share their opinion but their opinion should not be way too negative

    1. Thanks for this thoughtful comment, @comtemplative_fly. If you saw a business supporting a candidate, what would you do to make sure it doesn't have a negative effect on you?

      1. I would want the candidate not to use the products of the rival company. I would want the candidate not to comment anything negative about the company on social media. and if they have any problem then confront it to me first. I know there are many more things but the above-mentioned actions would be my priority.

      2. A good strategy to handle this scenario is to steer clear of political conversations with the business or its staff. You can respectfully say that you prefer not to discuss their opinions or choices, and concentrate on the work-related aspects of your interaction. You can also seek to broaden your perspectives and sources of information and views, and not depend on the business for any political direction or support. This way, you can preserve your own autonomy and reasoning, and avoid being swayed by their prejudice or motive.

      3. In the contract deal, there could be some conditions that the candidate gives to the business to follow.

    2. Yes, I think that there should be restrictions and boundaries that businesses adhere to when pushing individuals to cast their ballots, as it does have an impact on the public's opinion. Thus, suggestions should not be too critical. If it's negative, the company should clarify why voting is important and abstain from slandering politics. Furthermore, I believe that there is a need to be a law governing the process of manipulating people's decisions regarding which candidate to support.

    3. I agree with this point as companies have been known to manipulate people to agree with an idea. For example, if a company like mcdonalds started doing a voting campain for coke and they had coke products this would drive people to perfering coke and choosing it alot more so if a political member bribed someone then it would cause more votes for person. Building on this the idea of companys promoting people more than the idea that it would cause people want listen to them more than others as people trusty people more than others in positive lights. Voting would be ideal for that person.

    4. I think I am going to disagree with you, businesses should be allowed to encourage people to vote. I believe that it is important for as many people to vote and have a say as possible. So as a business it should be partly their responsibility to make sure that their employees cast their vote in general elections.

      However, it is also important that a business doesn't tell people who to vote for. They can share their view on who they believe should be in government but they shouldn't be allowed to directly say vote for this specific person.

      I think any way you can get as many people to vote as possible is important. Having people see the importance of voting should be both the government and businesses top priority.

      1. Great points accurate_outcome. Why do you think it is important to vote?

        1. I think it is important to vote because whatever you are voting for will have an impact on you, your family and your country. In the past people have fought for the right to vote as women or lower class citizens, so it is important that you make sure that their fight was worth something.

          Having the opportunity to vote is part of our freedom that some people take for granted. Those who have always had the chance to have a say don't know any different, so voting isn't as big of a deal for them. Whereas the older generations may remember life without having a say.

          I think that people don't see how important voting is until it is taken away. Having a say in what goes on in your country is vital to hear all of the voices and opinions to help make the most fair and just decision with what is going on in parliament.

          1. great response accurate_outcome. Clear and well reasoned. Well done!

    5. I exceedingly agree with you comtemplative_fly, the reason being is that you are right that businesses should not be allowed to encourage people to vote.
      The business might have cooperation with the candidate, as you stated, since the business might have great influence, it will be easy to persuade society. For example: if a brand is in cooperation with a party, the party can use products from the brand to persuade society, and the brand can also say good things about the brand or place it into their products in order to persuade the society in to voting for that party.
      I think that you are right about businesses supporting candidate can discourage the opposition candidate. This is because the opposition candidate might have negative thoughts like "with a big brand by their side, we can never prevail", or "I will never been enough without a big brand". Due to such thoughts, it reduces the candidates self- esteem; and maybe the candidate might never ever campaign again.
      In conclusion, I agree with you about businesses giving hints about the candidate they prefer, but it shouldn't be so open.

    6. Although I agree with the idea that businesses should remain, at least on the face of it, neutral to elections, is this actually achieved in practice? How would you view that political campaigns may be sponsored by major enterprises? Should this be prohibited legally?

    7. Hello comtemplative_fly
      I agree with you because the fact that you stated the point about businesses should not be allowed to encourage people to vote. I agree with your reason because most companies are like that. Many companies convince their workers to vote for that person but they don't know that they are making wrong decisions. And its mostly because that person is paying them more money and they are promising something that they are not even going to fulfill

  • I feel that while businesses can play a role in promoting civic engagements by encouraging customers to vote. The have a broader impact beyond profits. When business encourage voting , the foster a sense of community and employee determination. Businesses that actively promote voting can easily enhance their reputation and build trust with their fellow customers. I'm in full support of businesses encouraging people to vote, thereby placing emphasis on the importance of civic involvement .

    1. Interesting points? What about businesses going beyond just encouraging people to vote but also suggesting who they should vote for? The article above references Patagonia encouraging their supporters to vote for candidates that support the environmental concerns.

    2. I find it hard to agree with you fierce parrot, Businesses encouraging customers to vote can sometimes be invalid because most citizens especially at the United States of America do not really like voting, coming to the civic engagements most individuals do not have so much time to seat and do all that , in some underdeveloped countries you see individuals going to work and coming back very late in the night because of the countries economy, only the road traffic would even take up to 2hours of their time. Businesses should only make rallies or and enlighten the people on importance of voting for a leader during election and the decisions will be theirs to make.

      1. I disagree with you polite pomegranate about what you said that, some business that encourage customers to vote are not invalid during the election but maybe invalid to a person individually. So actually for me all business that encourage customers to vote during the election is during a great deed for the people so as to give them the hope to vote more during more elections to come like for instance in Nigeria if Nike brand comes to Nigeria to tell the people to vote during an election the people there will surely vote because of the person the Brand is supporting. Thanks.

  • Should businesses be allowed to openly support one candidate over another?
    This question got me thinking. A business openly supporting a particular candidate can negatively affect the business, my reason is people that ordinarily like a particular brand most at times may stop patronizing that brand because the brand is openly supporting or campaigning for a candidate other than the one the customer is supporting, in cases like this the customer may feel the brand is against them and then the brand would lose the patronage of that customer. Having in mind that there is no possible way a business is going to thrive without the patronage of customers.

    So, in my opinion businesses should not be allowed to openly support candidates, because they would be at the receiving end and not the candidate they are supporting.

    1. Hi tenacious_robin, you have an interesting perspective looking at the business side rather than the politics side.
      Should companies have the right to do things even if they know it will damage their business? Getting involved in elections is just one thing that companies could do that makes them unpopular.

      1. Well whether they decide to do things that will hurt their reputation is their decision to make. If it is a private business then the owner can make their own decisions. But it will be in their best interest to safeguard their reputation instead of putting it on the line. Even if they have a particular candidate that they really love, they should keep in mind that influencing other peoples decisions for their own personal gain is wrong and it will have a negative effect on them. I believe that they can do whatever they want, but it is advisable to focus on running their business and not the political affairs of the nation.

      2. Well, yes I think companies should be allowed to do things that can damage their businesses, this is as long as it does not have any adverse effects on society. For example, a company can decide to store a lot of capital in their stock, which can kill their profit economy, but it doesn't have any adverse effect on the environment, I believe they should be allowed to do things like this.

        But when they start allowing the machines, they use to emit fumes that have a very high magnitude of negative impact on society and nation at large, if this is the kind of thing they are doing, they should not be allowed. The reason is that they are causing lifelong problems for innocent people who are working tirelessly to move this aspect of climate change out of human reasoning, just to gain their profit.

        Getting involved in elections is just one thing that companies could do that makes them unpopular.
        on this aspect,

        Some people start businesses with the wrong mindset, that is why some of them do not make profit and end up as failed businessmen or women,
        One of the main purposes of running a business is to provide the needs of people at a price, right? Now if a business should take part in campaigning and then the party that that business supports wins, the other party would want to support or be part of the reason why that business is thriving. This is one reason why some businesses do not work out; my advice is that entrepreneurs should ''play their cards wisely.''
        to ensure the making of maximum profit and a successful business

        THANK YOU

  • Hello!
    I think businesses have the right to be engaged in politics as major brands could enlighten and give a new perspective on how issues should be solved and handled in the political sphere of things as we should not forget politics also affects how a business runs. For instance, the produces outdoor clothing (Patagonia), and the change in climate conditions directly affects the business so I do think it has a right to say political leaders should be voted out if they do not take practical steps against combating climate change a topic we have discussed on this platform meaning it is big news and is something that needs to be addressed seeing the fact that a business felt the need to step in.
    So I think that businesses like Patagonia among a variety of others feel the need to enlighten the world and advocators of their brand do have a say and their say should be respected as they are just doing their part to try and address global issues of huge concern.
    Thank You!!!

    1. Do you think businesses expressing their political opinions could influence your purchasing decisions?

    2. Thanks for sharing your thoughts, @gregarious_bee. Would you feel the same way if the business was commenting against climate change, for instance if they were arguing that more polluting factories should be built because it helps development?

      1. I don't think i feel the same. in as much as we need more factories to enable our developments, it will make more sense to build those factories to run on renewable energy. With renewable energy we can cut down on climate change and promote development. New technological innovation must focus on developing renewable energy systems that sustainable. I want disagree with the idea that we should build factories that end up attacking the earth atmosphere resulting in global warming. I believe that we can achieve new factories with environmental friendly systems.

      2. Of course NO, building more factories that will be polluting the air of the city will cause so many hazardous diseases to the body and the environment at large. Coming to noise pollution so many people might build houses close to factories when the noise is too much the individuals living close by will not be able to do things that require critical thinking.
        In air pollution the air will be polluted with smokes that affects the breathing of people living in the society.
        In land pollution oil spillages affects agricultural resources like the land will no longer be fertile for planting and growing of crops.
        All these are already affecting the climate the spillages, smokes and all that are very dangerous for humans.

  • Well, let's dig into the debate over whether businesses should be involved in politics as a whole - you know, whether they should be telling people to go to the polls, choose to support a candidate, or throw shade at policies. It's a mixed bag. John Stuart Mill dropped the microphone and said, "In the long run, the value of a nation is the value of the individuals who compose it." Some believe that large corporations can act like cheerleaders for democracy, spreading good vibes and values. . Take Patagonia, for example. Not only do they provide outdoor gear, but they also encourage people to demonstrate their ability to vote. But then came the skeptics, whose inner righteous Louis Brandeis warned, “We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we cannot have both.” They worry that big business could disrupt the dance of our democracy and widen the gap between haves and have-nots. Striking a balance here means paying close attention to legal matters and staying true to our democratic roots, giving companies a voice without derailing fairness and equality. Therefor This question is always going to stir up a variety of opinions, and as a nation, we've got to figure out which approach is not only effective but also better for everyone. It's a bit of a balancing act, with some folks leaning towards the positive side of things, you know? Ultimately, we need to make choices that will benefit our nation in the long run.

    1. What do you think is the answer?

      1. Hello Ollie,
        My answer to the question of whether corporations should be allowed to participate in politics is neutral. There are good points on both sides of this debate, and they are both powerful. Corporate involvement in political events is important and can bring about significant change, but it can also backfire and create social injustice. So there are compelling arguments on both sides of this debate. On the one hand, businesses can bring about positive changes and contribute to social progress by participating in political activities. They often have resources, expertise, and influence that can be leveraged for the greater good. On the other hand, when businesses engage in politics, there is a risk of unfair and undue influence that can distort decision-making processes and perpetuate inequalities within society. Therefore, it is important to understand whether businesses should be allowed to participate in these political activities and whether this will help our environment and society positively or negatively, as the influence of large corporations and people may change the way people think and behave .

        1. It is indeed true that there are some good arguments to support both points of view. However, would it also depend on the objective which is pursued by a business when deciding to support or not to support a political campaign? There may be a pure commercial incentive but also an intention to benefit a local community or promote specific trend. Should in your view objective criteria be established to be observed by businesses when participating in elections campaigns?

  • Yes I think that business ventures should be allowed to participate in political activities. I think they have different opinions on who to vote for so I do support the fact that businesses should be allowed to share their opinions about business.
    But on the other hand I do not think Business Ventures should be allowed to vote for one person because everybody has different opinions and reasons why they should vote for the candidates of their choice.
    I do not think people should be encouraged by Business Ventures because those Business Ventures could be hired to illegally pay those people or convince them to vote for the opposite candidates or that business ventures proffered candidate.

  • Hi, I think that businesses should be allowed to share opinions about policies, businesses have great roles in the way most people think, for instance when the play station 5 came out, many people rushed to buy it because of the popularity of the play station4, now businesses have the right to share their opinions about policies because the policies affect both them and others around them. Then again, most businesses should not bad mouth a candidate for an election because that is a sign of evil, instead businesses should show people their opinions about policies in a polite way that is just and right, then again businesses should be careful of what they say because they are great influencers to the people who buy their products, many people again should not misinterpret a business's opinion as an excuse to act outrageously in their society.
    Thank you.

    1. What about if companies encourage people to vote for politicians that serve their best interests? For example a Tobacco company may encourage people to vote for politicians that support libertarian views on the right to smoke cigarettes even though the science shows the huge damage and cost of smoking to health and the economy.