Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Corporations can vote in some Delaware elections, judge says

news.bloomberglaw.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 269 posts

Re: Corporations can vote in some Delaware elections, judge says

#151

Post by EnergyAmy »

rayiner wrote: post #99
esikich wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does a corporation need healthcare? Can a corporation be jailed? Does a corporation have a finite life in which they can pursue happiness? Does a corporation have offspring it's trying to raise? Does a corporation have hopes and dreams? Does a corporation wish to visit a park or visit with their neighbors? Are you for real?

No, but the people who own and control the corporation all do.

They can vote and act in their capacity as people. They can fuck off otherwise.

Re: Corporations can vote in some Delaware elections, judge says

#152

Post by EnergyAmy »

rayiner wrote: post #105
wat10000 wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The question is, why did they bother to take it to court instead of just transferring ownership directly to their persons and then voting as humans? If corporations are just proxies then why bother with the lawyers and the court fees and the time?

Because they want the other benefits of the corporate form. Why should they have to choose between the benefits of the corporate structure and exercising the rights the municipality has given property owners?

Because corporations aren't people. Full stop.

Re: Corporations can vote in some Delaware elections, judge says

#153

Post by SoftTalker »

ceejayoz wrote: post #107
Refreeze5224 wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The owner votes as themselves, and again as the corporate entity.

No. Per the ruling: > Where a voter is entitled to vote by virtue of being both a resident and as an owner of real property, that voter shall be entitled to only one vote; where a voter is entitled to vote by ownership of two or more parcels of real property, that voter shall be entitled to only one vote. However, that seems to get messy with multi-owner LLCs where you might give 1% of each LLC to a bunch of your bud…

The POA is to vote as a proxy for the entity. The entity gets one vote. Not one vote per shareholder.

Re: Corporations can vote in some Delaware elections, judge says

#154

Post by Gormo »

Henchman21 wrote: post #133
Gormo wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Replace "corporation" in each of your questions above with "organizational model employed by people as a mechanism for coordinating complex activities", and the answers should all become clear. Much of the discourse on this topic involves muddled, contradictory thinking that simultaneously argues "corporations aren't people" and "corporations are exercising autonomous agency as singular entities distinct from the peo…

It _seems true_ when the people represented by the organizational model never face consequences for their actions, using the corporation as a liability shield. So while corporations aren't people, they do seem to be exercising autonomous agency as singular entities distinct from the people who constitute them. Because by definition that is what a limited liability corporation provides? It seems that this is the crux…

> It _seems true_ when the people represented by the organizational model never face consequences for their actions, using the corporation as a liability shield.

Corporations don't function as a liability shield in the sense you're talking about. The idea that people can individually engage in criminal or tortious conduct without any direct accountability is a myth -- limited liability protects investors from financial liabilities that exceed their investment, but it in no way shields corporate managers from liability for their own criminal conduct in managing the firm.

> So while corporations aren't people, they do seem to be exercising autonomous agency as singular entities distinct from the people who constitute them. Because by definition that is what a limited liability corporation provides?

No, it does not do that in any way, shape or form. Limited liability means that creditors can't foreclose on your house to cover the debts of a firm that you own $100 of stock in. It does not shield anyone actually managing the company from civil or criminal liability for their actions.

> It seems that this is the crux of a lot of angst?

That angst is attributable to believing in misinformation pushed advanced by factions who benefit from increasing conflict and controversy in our society.

Re: Corporations can vote in some Delaware elections, judge says

#155

Post by SoftTalker »

shimman wrote: post #147
SoftTalker wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I own property there, I pay property taxes there (at the highest "non-owner-occupied" rate), in my case I'm actively operating a business not (just) a passive investor. Why should I have zero say in how those taxes are spent, or other local governance? I'm not a disinterested bystander.

I pay sales taxes in other cities I travel in, I too should get a say in how they run their government. Money, after all, is the top virtue in a democracy; if it wasn't why did the founders ensure that slavers had equal representation?

I would say the difference is that as a property owner I have a long-term local presence and vested interest there, I am (in theory) motivated to make thoughtful decisions about local governance, as opposed to a disinterested bystander passing through and paying local sales tax on a soft drink.

Re: Corporations can vote in some Delaware elections, judge says

#156

Post by charcircuit »

Hugsbox wrote: post #72
SoftTalker wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I own property in a nearby town but it's an investment; I don't live there. I'm unable to vote in their local elections. I have not heard of property ownership being a qualification to vote since the 1800s.

Which makes sense... why should anyone get a say in the local matters of a place they don't even live in?

Because you have a vested interest in the success of that region by owning land (and a business) at that location. You have skin in the game compared to someone who is just renting and can easily flee to a different city if they vote poorly.

Re: Corporations can vote in some Delaware elections, judge says

#157

Post by wat10000 »

mschuster91 wrote: post #138
wat10000 wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The question is not what the law says (the headline is sufficient to understand that), but why people are doing this at all. If corporations are just proxies for their owners, then owners who want a vote could just own the property in their own name rather than their corporation's and problem solved. There is some reason they don't do this. I want rayiner to spell it out for me, because that "a corporation is just a…

> I want rayiner to spell it out for me, because that "a corporation is just a proxy" line is 100% horseshit. Not the original author, but generically, there are a few reasons why one would place a residential property in a distinct legal entity. Most commonly it's to shield a property against others - spouses, children or other relatives with legal inheritance claims, especially if the jurisdiction in question treat…

Right. And maybe in exchange for that, you don't get a non-resident vote anymore. That doesn't sound outrageous to me. If the LLC were a pure proxy then none of these advantages would apply. It makes sense that there might be some tradeoffs involved.

Re: Corporations can vote in some Delaware elections, judge says

#158

Post by BurningFrog »

craftkiller wrote: post #58
rayiner wrote: post #25

I don’t understand why people have so much trouble understanding that a “corporation” is just a proxy for the humans that own and control the corporation. In this case, non-residents who own a house on the island can vote according to the charter. The charter just says that this doesn’t change because you move ownership of the house into a legal entity that some human then owns and controls. The actual grievance seem…

> they won’t want rich people to vote. I don't think anyone would object to a rich person casting a single vote and maybe putting a bumper sticker on their car or a sign in their yard. The issue people take with the rich and politics is the outsized influence they wield in elections. The whole "one person one vote" thing falls apart when the rich can throw millions at advertisements and millions at the "charities" ru…

This is just a disagreement with the principle of free speech.

If you're only for free speech as long as it doesn't change people's minds, we have very different perspectives.

Re: Corporations can vote in some Delaware elections, judge says

#159

Post by SoftTalker »

ceejayoz wrote: post #16
cwmma wrote: post #12

It's specifically about corporations that own property in a specific town voting. So no you can't just spin up a bunch of LLCs to rig an election, this is about the rights of absentee landlords.

> So no you can't just spin up a bunch of LLCs to rig an election… Sure you can. You just have to sell them some land as part of it.

Land is bought and sold in government-regulated parcels. You can't just split up an acre of land into square foot plots and sell them.
Post reply on HN