Robert Reich, former Clinton man, has an article up at Free Exchange .

As a disclosure, I really like Reich. I read his book "Reason" a few years back and have been thinking about picking up his new book Supercapitalism . I find him to be a very thoughtful writer and a worthy read.

In his article, he discusses social responsibility on the part of auto-makers, namely Toyota. He makes a good point about how the operations of such a company should be viewed by seeking to clarify the supposed hypocrisy of developing the gas-frugal Prius while signing a petition along with other auto-makers to oppose a senate bill mandating higher fuel standards: There is no hypocrisy.

Says Reich:

The company exists to maximize shareholder value, and in this super-competitive capitalist world it has less and less choice about the matter.... Presumably Toyota invented the Prius to fulfill an important and potentially growing market niche in cars that consumed less energy. As such, it was being neither socially responsible nor irresponsible; it was simply responding to market demands.

Well said. However he qualified all this by saying Toyota isn't even a person. Which is true is some sense but also a slippery tactic on semantics to set up his main point.

But first, he says that Toyota's motive is "presumably" to cut off a mandate that would cut into its market share of fuel efficient vehicles. Love that word..."presumably". A good way to qualify a subjective point without needing proving it. I certainly do not agree that that is their motive. I think its because of the imposition of costs and diversion of scarce resources it mandates on their operations. But that's really an aside here. It's not the issue.

The brunt of Reich's point is this:

The problem is that Toyota, and other companies that venture into politics, are undermining the democratic process. Most people are not just consumers and investors. They're also citizens, who have citizen values—including saving the planet from global warming. Toyota has every right to respond to the part of our heads that correspond to consumer and investor values, but companies have no ethical grounds for entering into the democratic realm which should be reserved for citizen values. If corporate social responsibility means anything at all, it should mean refraining from corrupting the political process.

Going back to Reich's previous point about Toyota not being a person, we see now where it was going. Reich's framing is flawed in suggesting that such actions by Toyota or GM are undermining the democratic process. He presupposes the worth and validity of their role in democratic participation as well as those of citizens. Sorry, Reich, but the people who work at Toyota have an interest in the company and have values and interests of their own along with global warming.

Farmers have an interest in agriculture subsidies which I'd venture to say Reich does not support and neither do I. But, following Reich's logic here, farming interest groups should not have a say in policy that can affect them because farming is a business and these "citizen matters". The flaw in Reich's value judgment is clear in this example.

By framing this idea of democracy and how it should tackle issues, he's asserting through implication that such fuel mandate measures constitute a real solution when that is far from clear. He's also asserting pretty clearly, on a judgmental soapbox, that business interests and citizen interests are different and that "citizens with business interests" have no ethical grounds to participate in advocacy and petitioning to oppose legislation that can infringe on their economic stake in this country. NONSENSE! Whether it's Toyota or a mom and pop shop, business people are citizens and have every right to petition for or against laws...so long as government is making it its business to intervene. I'm not saying that there's no place for intervention here but the nature of the intervention is real matter at hand. And those affected by certain kinds of intervention have every right to have their say and participate in the process.

Making this about "saving the world" is an emotional ploy. And purporting to claim whose opinions matter on which issues is simply flawed.

Distilled to a core assertion, Reich is defining "citizen values" in a way that attempts to disqualify values that may not agree with his on the basis of the agenda of those who hold said values. Reich is wrong. So long as government is claiming authority to legislate on a certain issue, all relevant opinions have a place at the table. The agenda or nature of the opinion is not what matters. What matters is whether the opinion is valid and worthy of consideration. Toyota's PEOPLE have every right to petition on a law that seeks to impose mandates on them. The merits of position are what matter, not the holders of it.

Corruption is not the issue here. If you really think about makes for corruption at its core, it has nothing to do with any particular group petitioning their concerns. Real corruption is a matter for another time and another discussion.

The rights of people to advocate policies regardless of who they are or what their agenda is aside, a sublayer to this policy issue about fuel standard mandates concerns the merits of the proposal itself. Mandating fuel standards is not necessarily the best way to combat global warming. There's plenty of reason to believe the effects of such a policy would be minimal because it's not addressing the core concern: effectively reducing emissions or fuel consumption. It does neither. It simply makes it less expensive for the consumer to consume fuel and pollute while imposing costs on the auto-maker in what may very well be an expensive wash. As a citizen with no stake in Toyota, I can say that Toyota's petition is fine with me and it has merit. I agree with them on the merits of defeating the legislation, not because I'm shilling for Toyota. This legislation is a "feel-good" policy that will fail while pushing the brunt of the cost on a small group and accomplishing close to nothing. This legislation does address the right incentives to achieve its goal. Perhaps Reich should think about that instead of wagging his finger at Toyota and saying they should "butt out" or that they don't belong in the debate.