Unfortunately Lee,I think it is more than a few. There was a time in this country when corporate entities where tightly regulated. Across most states ,they were prohibited  from, among other things, making political contributions. That changed after the Civil War with the growth of railroad monopolies., industrialization, etc. and the wealth and power they obtained.  It got to the point that the Republican party under Presidents T. Roosevelt and H. Taft, began strenuous efforts to haul in the abuses of mega monopolies. Much was done and continued under President Wilson. All this changed again after WWI and 12 years of big business republicans leading to the crash of 1929. Upon the election of President F. Roosevelt, much of the work of the progressive republican party during the early 1900s was revived and expanded upon. The list of reforms are well know to all who read have any of the history of these periods. 

Beginning in 1980 with the election of President Reagan, who's chief financial advisor was Milton Friedman (a student of Hayek's), many of our political leaders bought into the "Neo-Liberal"economic theories pontificated by Frederick Hayek, others, who believed that any  regulation of the market place was a bad idea. The best way to ensure an economic utopia was to give the private sector free rein, a free market would control corruption, price fixing, monopolies, and the list goes. The neo-liberals also wanted our governmental services basically privatized or contacted out, public land sold off to the highest bidder, etc. There was a time when the corporate entities  agreed to the charters issued by the states, they were obligated  to consider the public interest, not any more, as EC has stated, its all about the quarterly profit margin. Please excuse my own pontification, and I am certainly not an expert on any of this, but these neo-liberal economic policies have done just what they did in the 1920's, led to the greatest concentration of wealth in the fewest hands in our nations history and of course corrupted the political system to the same levels that existed during the gilded age.  

Thank you Dr. Runte for your stand up  defense against this robbery of the historical place names in Yosemite. 

Changing the names was a smart move.  It prevents DNC from making an argument in court that the parks and new concessionaire are illegally using the names startinbg 3/1.  It also reduces the value of the names as a barganing chip for DNC.  I don't think the name change will be in place forever and expect the NPS to evenually get the names back in a court settlement.

Good point David Crowl, I know it is a complex issue. One interesting comment by ypc pointed out, that upon the change from MCA to a new concessionaire,there was much that happened. The Secretary of the Interior at that time, Manual Lujan, negated the takeover of the contract by a Japanese Company leading to a buyout by a third party, NPCA, (and eventually the award of a new contract to DNC under then Secreatary of DOI, Bruce Babbitt) of all the private structures  built and transfered through the years to MCA. We the citizens then owned the structures. These facilities, the Ahwahnee, Wawona Hotels, etc are owned by the NPS. The contract with DNC may have recognized trademarks established by MCA, or carried on from previous concessionaires, such as company logos etc. but it is question that the names of the structures owned by we the citizens could be trademarked. That will be a point of contention legally along with other Executive and Congressional Acts like the National Historic Preservation Act. It will interesting to see how it all turns out, and I am certainly not an expert on the issue. I do however agree with Dr. Runte, it is a shameful money grab by DNC.