For the most part, I really don't care what the political bent is for the CEO's of companies that I deal with.  For the most part.   I qualify it a bit in order to leave room to say that there may be times when someone is just such a total Donkey-hat that the things they say or do so badly turn me off to them that I just don't want to deal with them at all.  Normally it's not an issue or even a factor in things and I probably wouldn't let it affect my buying decisions and such, but if I just can't disassociate the individual from the organization/business then I just can't do it and the business/organization may suffer because of it.

For example: if I happen to know what businesses/organizations Soros is associated with then there is no way I'm going to do business with them.  The same would hold for Michael Moore (which translates to me not giving support to his films).  The Dixie Chicks are another group that has victimized their sales in my area.

On the other hand, I know that there are lots of other people out there have different political leanings than I do and I really don't care.  They can give their money to whatever causes they wish, they can campaign for whomever they want, they can lobby for whatever causes they want and I'd just go on blissfully unaware and uncaring.

Certainly. There are definitely thresholds. If I found out a company was using funeling profits to Hamas I'd likely not buy from them again.

But if I find out the CEO supports Obama, I don't really care one way or the other (thoughI probably wouldn't buy stock in the company <g>).

I don't quite understand how you equate Michael Moore and the Dixie Chicks. Michael Moore, whether you agree or disagree with him, has never made any bones about the fact that he makes movies motivated and informed by a point of view (namely, his own). However, the Dixie Chicks made a single comment at a concert overseas, and this translated to a firestorm of criticism here at home, not to mention "record burnings" of the sort that haven't been seen since the 1960's, slumping sales, and death threats. It was only after that occurred that the Chicks began making music with an overtly political voice (unless you count "Goodbye Earl"). Frankly, while I take Draginol's point that he may not be interested in a singer's politics when he goes to a concert, I hope he would agree that the singer does have a right to speak his/her mind.

Personally, I suspect that the CEOs of most companies from whom I purchase goods and services (and, in the case of Stardock, it's a pretty good bet ) have political viewpoints that are very much at odds with my own. Heck, I argue with my wife about politics a lot, and neither one of us has kicked the other one out yet. I don't really have the energy to worry about things like that, for the most part.

I support Michael Moore more than teh Dixie Chicks.  The Dixie Chicks are leveraging their fame that was generated by their customers demand for their music titles.

Michael Moore, by contrast, has been very clear about what he is selling.

Hm. I'm not sure I completely understand what you mean by this, but the point I was trying to make is that, while you may not go to their concerts to hear their political views, the idea of musicians having and expressing political views, especially in a natural forum (for them) like a concert, is hardly new. I believe that they (or any other musician) may justly be criticized for the views they do express, but it troubles me when that criticism goes beyond a dispute over viewpoints and becomes something uglier where they are being told that they should not express views at all. I don't think that Natalie Maines having a particular view of the current adminstration should necessarily influence whether you enjoy their music, and while you're free to "vote with your pocketbook," so to speak, to me this seems like an analogous situation to what you mention in your original post: that a person or group is being told that because they produce a product which people must buy in order for that person or group to make a profit, they are told to remain silent on political issues.

Not new, but fraud. People dont go to a Dixie Chick or Babs Streisand concert to hear about their political views, but to hear their talent. And their political views only get air time because of their talent that is bought and paid for with fans that want the talent, not the editorial.

If the Dixie Chicks had made the statement on Larry King, that would have been a whole different ball game. But they were too cowardly to do that, instead using a concert to rob the audience of what they paid for.

Brad is right. Agree or disagree with Michael Moore. He has never deceived anyone on his agenda, so if you went to see Farenheit 911, you knew what you were going to see (the making of it is another matter).

Dr Guy,

I think you are missing or glossing over my point, which was that the Dixie Chicks had no "agenda," as you put it, until Natalie Maines made a single comment at a concert and there was a subsequent tremendous backlash as a result. Look at any of their earlier albums (pre-Taking the Long Way) and see if you can find a track that demonstrates a specific political viewpoint. Are you really suggesting that singers should not be allowed to express views at their concerts? While it may not be what you went there for, does it really affect their product (the music)? I would argue that unless it does actually affect the product, as in Taking the Long Way or any of Bruce Springsteen's albums from the 1980s on, then your argument seems tantamount to limiting someone else's freedom of speech because it doesn't concur with your stance on an issue.

I don't understand how a few comments between songs at a concert somehow deprives an audience of what it came for. If a singer makes a political statement with which you disagree, you can no longer listen to his/her music? I mean, as I indicated above, if I felt that way, I'd probably be living in a park and wiping my ass with leaves because I certainly couldn't reasonably justify purchasing the vast majority of manufactured products available in America today, as the heads of the companies making those products likely hold political views (and many have probably made public statements about them) with which I do not agree.

I suspect if someone bought a copy of one of our products and while installing it said "We are ashamed of <insert well known political figure>" that there would be a lot of unhappy people.

No one is suggesting that they don't have the right to speak out on what they believe. But fans certainly have the right to take their dollars elsewhere.