I'm confused why you are holding politicians to a standard that you are unwilling to apply to corporate entities, who serve politicians explicitly via the government and their corporate charter. Either both are acting according to their interests and we should examine outcomes, or neither are, and the system is broken.

Because the corporations are acting amorally while the politicians are acting immorally. Corporations are not obligated to better society. Politicians are. The corporations are ignoring something that is outside their responsibility. The politicians are ignoring something that is within their responsibility.

"Corporations" don't act. The people who manage them do. These acts are not amoral; they have real consequences for real people, and need to be judged as such.

Corporations may not be obliged to better society, but it is entirely reasonable for me to look upon them unfavorably when their management intentionally and knowingly takes actions that make life worse for most people.

It is very strange that you believe that an entity can engage with a government but then be absolved of all responsibility for the outcome of that engagement.

Making the world worse so you can benefit is *evil*. It's evil when individuals do it, and it's evil when corporations do it.

It doesn't matter that a certain choice is better for the corporation. It's still immoral for the corporation to harm people.

This weekend I drove to the beach when I could have just sat in my house all day. I personally benefitted by receiving a relaxing afternoon at the expense of creating extra pollution for everyone else on the planet to deal with. By your definition that is evil and therefore we are all evil.

This is not comparable to crippling the efficiency of the US tax system for hundreds of millions of people in order to fluff corporate profits.

Look back at your previous comment:

>Making the world worse so you can benefit is evil. It's evil when individuals do it, and it's evil when corporations do it.

You are simultaneously arguing against nuance in one comment and then for it in the next.

I think this is where you erred in your reasoning:

> The corporations are ignoring something that is outside their responsibility.

Intuit is actively lobbying about tax preparation, ergo it is their responsibility, ergo they can be judged for their actions on it. In general you are correct, in the specifics here, you are incorrect.