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

171–180 of 269 posts

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

#171

Post by Henchman21 »

Gormo wrote: post #154
Henchman21 wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 financi…

Excellent reply thank you!

So why then does it seem that corporations do in fact shield executives from criminal charges? Is this just collusion among the well-off? Money buys verdicts?

I’m happy to take your word on limited liability as IANAL (obviously) but it sure as hell seems like executives ought to go to jail a LOT more than they do. Corporations do terrible things in the world and are seemingly never held to account.

Finally, looking to my own education, can you suggest a place to read up on this topic so I am not flatly wrong in the future? Thx in advance :)

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

#172

Post by FuriouslyAdrift »

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.

I mean... Larry Ellison bought an entire Hawaiian island... from the Dole family

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C4%81na%CA%BBi

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

#173

Post by xd1936 »

SoftTalker wrote: post #159
ceejayoz wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Sure, corporations would _never_ get into the real estate market...

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

#174

Post by duped »

kulahan wrote: post #164
roxolotl wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Pullman, IL was the model of a company town and started off as a reasonable (if paternalistic) approach to providing good housing and services to your employees.

Unsurprisingly, it did not last.

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

#175

Post by wat10000 »

Gormo wrote: post #113
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?

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…

Why can't both of those be true? I don't see any contradiction between them. The law doesn't seem to have any issue taking them both as true either. Corporations are considered their own entity under the law, but they do not enjoy all the rights of people. The whole reason this story is making headlines instead of being a humdrum "dog bites man" event is because corporations typically do not have the right to vote, even though people mostly do.

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

#176

Post by esikich »

Gormo wrote: post #113
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?

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…

Those people can already vote. I have no idea what your point is.

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

#177

Post by cco »

ProllyInfamous wrote: post #126
swampthing wrote: post #71

To save everyone some trouble, "some Delaware elections" refers to elections in a town that amended its charter to explicitly allow legal entities to vote.

I have no problem with individual jurisdictions controlling how their domestic-chartered companies operate/speak/vote — particularly with the recent Hawai'ian example: [in attempts of] reversing Citizens United , by removing political speech from corporate entities. Bravo, Hawaii.

This ruling is the exact opposite of the recent proposal from Hawaii.

That ruling is predicated on the state having control over corporations and how they behave. This ruling in Delaware is affirming a clear path for corporations to have control over the state (county, city etc).

With this ruling, it affirms a corporations ability to form air tight rule over municipal governments and operate them as they see fit. Once a corporation manufactures a majority vote in this municipality, they can then amend any rules they see fit, install their own executive leadership and have removed any corporate control over it.

In the thin sense these are both jurisdictions controlling how corporations behave, but one cedes complete control to corporations and the other vastly limits a corporation's ability to exert political control.

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

#178

Post by staplers »

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.

Dupont, WA is another

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

#179

Post by craftkiller »

BurningFrog wrote: post #158
craftkiller wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

The issue isn't that people are trying to change people's minds. There are two issues here:

First, the rich have unimaginably more power in changing people's minds. This isn't sitting down at a bar and having a chat with hank to try to convince him to vote on prop 99. It is the wealthy putting their opinions on your phone, television, and billboards, reminding you of it multiple times per day. If politics is truly a contest of ideas, then the playing field needs to be level so that the ideas can be evaluated fairly, rather than it simply being a contest of who can buy enough ad space to brainwash people to vote against their interests.

Second, the wealthy don't have to change people's minds. They can purchase politicians by "donating" to them, going to million-dollar-per-plate dinners hosted by them, directly giving them money by staying in their hotels, etc. You don't have to convince a politician that they should vote on prop 99, you just need to pay them however much they want for their vote.

If the wealthy had exactly as much power in politics as a fireman or nurse, then I'd be all for their participation.

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

#180

Post by pseudalopex »

ceejayoz wrote: post #141
pseudalopex wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The strongest plausible interpretation of josefritzishere and Refreeze5224 was the judge was wrong because voting in 2 places would violate 1 person 1 vote. Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize.[1] [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

But that's not true, either. My town has a village at its core; village residents vote in two places. Our school district doesn't perfectly match the town's borders, either, so some folks vote in two places there. One person gets one vote in a particular election .

This is not what people mean when they say vote in 2 places commonly. And I said 2 cities before.

1 person 1 vote is an expression of equal representation.[1] Someone who votes in city 1 and city 2 and someone who votes in city 1 solely have unequal representation.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_man%2C_one_vote

Post reply on HN