IF government has decreed that corporations have the same (or more) rights as people,

[T Wolf]

and it is valid to bring consequences to a corporation/business that backs a policy that, e.g., denies rights to a class of people (Prop H8 in CA),

and many rightly observe that "liberals not shopping at Wal-mart has no impact on the corporation" because they are so big,

then why is it not a valid tactic to go after the individual people who are responsible for the corporate decision that prompted the protest?

Wal-mart or the Mormon and/or Catholic church cannot be impacted by individual action. But individual people can.

If a company's CEO actually had to take into account in his decision-making process his (and his family's) personal well-being, just maybe he would make different decisions. We will never be able to impact his wealth. The rich never suffer financial consequences. His health is the only available weakness, and thus, a legitimate target.

[Citizen Number 9]

1. If you were

a shareholder of the corporation you would have had a direct say in said CEO's situation and direction from the very beginning.

[HillbillyBob]

2. Only if you are a major share holder, most folks do not own enough

to affect outcomes.

[Citizen Number 9]

4. That's like saying

a single vote doesn't count for anything.

People routinely go in to affect corporate governance holding 100 shares.

[Alcibiades]

3. Corporate governance processes

make Diebold look like the model of transparency and accountability.