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

161–170 of 269 posts

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

#161

Post by mindslight »

rayiner wrote: post #112
mindslight wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't play coy. We are obviously talking about the overall national political landscape, extrapolating from this one development to its part in a larger trend. The specific politics of Delaware (which team is the incumbent and how the state is openly corporate friendly) don't change that.

My point is that the example you’ve chosen to highlight is a major counter example that undermines your broader narrative.

I haven't highlighted anything here. I actually characterized the original comment as a "low effort partisan comment".

This development is also not a counter example - Both parties routinely do the bidding of corporate entrenched interests, but they market it in different ways. So an instance of Democrats advancing the corporatist agenda isn't some gotcha like you're making it out to be.

Though perhaps by "undermine" you just mean it's something for other partisans to latch onto to support their own rationalizations rather than coming to terms with that "broader narrative".

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

#162

Post by rho138 »

rayiner wrote: post #14
bitwize wrote: post #4

[flagged]

[flagged]

Incorrect - this is southern delaware homie. While the northern portions enjoy the storied histories of great Delawareans like Harriett Tubman, the rest is a mix of that and some who’d prefer a more sterile white future.

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

#163

Post by SoftTalker »

ceejayoz wrote: post #24
nh23423fefe wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are you pretending this argument wasn't addressed in the opinion?

But it wasn't, really. > 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. > Any legal entity other than a natural person entitled to vote, must cast its vote by a duly executed and not…

What would probably happen is that all the the owners of the property would have to designate one POA among themselves to represent their collective interest in that property.

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

#164

Post by kulahan »

roxolotl wrote: post #77
rc-research wrote: post #28

> Visions of faceless large corporations or even HAL controlling a small town are frightening and the stuff of science fiction. Company towns are well-recorded history, not science fiction. Lost Hills California (home of Wonderful Pistachios) exists in the real, present, non-fictional world.

That does not make it not frightening nor not the stuff of science fiction. We know how awful corporate towns are that’s partly why cyberpunk is what it is.

There’s really nothing inherently profane about the concept, it’s just often abused. I’d love to see a few working examples out in the real world, personally.

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

#165

Post by Supermancho »

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?

> Money, after all, is the top virtue in a democracy

"The Founders" of the US (however you want to form that category) were not the arbiters of what is virtuous about Democracy. Democracy is orthogonal to US law and intent. The PR for the US has always tried to message that they are a singular ethos.

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

#166

Post by turbonaut »

yieldcrv wrote: post #3

> Visions of faceless large corporations or even HAL controlling a small town are frightening and the stuff of science fiction The City of London and Hong Kong have half of the voting power held by corporations and City of London is older than any US state, and colony. And so are some of the guilds Universal suffrage at all, and exclusive to natural persons, is more science fiction than corporations voting

https://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/about-us/voting-elections/bu...

Gives more details on the ability of companies to vote in City of London elections.

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

#167

Post by ryandrake »

SoftTalker wrote: post #155
shimman wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You can't have a presence if you're not present.

My parents own two properties, but they have to decide which one they are residents of, because they are not entitled to a say in how both local governments are run.

If I am a long-term owner of Google stock, I still don't get a say in how Mountain View runs their city. A "vested financial interest" in an area should not be enough to give one a vote on local laws.

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

#169

Post by kulahan »

forgetfulness wrote: post #54
ceejayoz wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it wasn't, really. > 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. > Any legal entity other than a natural person entitled to vote, must cast its vote by a duly executed and not…

Also what constitutes ownership here? Couldn't some Enterprising Individuals open 100 shell companies, pool together resources and form the Legalize Asbestos Consortium, the Consortium buys a plot of land and then each stakeholder of the Consortium counts as an owner of the plot of land?

Asbestos is still used today in some instances. Should’ve used heroin or something

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

#170

Post by mindslight »

SkyPuncher wrote: post #69
cwmma wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sounds like you it's only corporations that own property in the town that get to vote. So that's probably whats preventing you.

Owning property through a corporation is trivial. 3 of my nearby neighbors are owned via an LLC (rentals). * Start an LLC/C-corp for a trivial amount of money. * Purchase land, but instead of paying with it via a personal check, you need a touch of foresight so you can "capitalize" the corporation you just started. Write the check from the corporation, instead of your personal checkbook.

IANAA, but having looked into it this does very little to actually reduce the liability exposure from small businesses. The minute you do anything yourself, you start to accrue personal liability. The only way to keep the corporate veil intact is to hire other people. So it only works if you're rich enough to hire a management company to do everything (screen tenants, maintenance/inspections, supervise contractors, etc) and you manage it as a purely financial investment. Just like the anonymity aspect doesn't work out in most states unless you're willing to shell out for an attorney to be the manager. In general these laws aren't made to help little people.
Post reply on HN