I'm absolutely assuming a company is purely a vessel to voice the shareholders opinions, provided that doing so is in accordance with the corporate charter.<p><i>For example, if Apple, who sells computers, decides to push an agenda to segregate schools using the money and influence it acquired from selling iPods and iPads, do you think this is okay?</i><p>It depends. As far as I know, the corporate charter of Apple is the standard "increase shareholder value" charter. In that case, it would not be acceptable for Apple to do this unless somehow segregation increased shareholder value. In fact, pushing segregation would be violating the rights of minority shareholders.<p>However, pushing a "windows sux" law or candidate would not violate the rights of minority shareholders since such a corporate strategy could reasonably increase shareholder value.<p>On the other hand, the corporate charter allowed Apple to devote 10% of their profits to general racism (or perhaps to general social causes, as agreed to by the board), then it would be acceptable regardless of the opinion of the minority.<p>This is simply a question of contract law. If you don't like the charter of a company, don't buy shares.<p><i>!!!If you let people use power accrued through unrelated methods push certain agendas, then special interests that stand weakly on their own merits' will have undeserved representation in our government!!!</i><p>This is not an issue restricted to corporations. In general, we allow people to persuade other people to vote in all sorts of ways. Some people have persuasive power accrued through unrelated methods.<p>For example, Barack Obama has verbal persuasive power accrued through methods (community organizing and teaching law) completely unrelated to government insurance, union bailouts and cash for clunkers. Should he be forbidden from speaking?