101–110 of 269 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It fundamentally violates one person/entity/one vote. Corporations are not sentient. If you let them vote, a person gets to vote twice. There's no way around that conflict. I feel like this has to collapse on appeal or the nation is doomed.
> a person gets to vote twice. how do they do that?
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…
> 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 Exactly! They could do that, so the law shouldn’t treat the two situations differently. You just proved my point, not yours. > There is some reason they don't do this I’m sure they have many reasons. But that doesn’t change the fact that the…
> 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
Earlier quoted context omitted.
“NYT” staff don’t publish the paper, the corporation does.
Irrelevant. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan - and the First Amendment it draws upon - applies to everyone, regardless of what corporation they may or may not work for. An unemployed person is protected from defamation claims by public figures under it just fine. It does not establish any special corporate rights.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because the municipal charter in question confers to vote on the property owner. Which might technically be a corporation.
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?
I was daydreaming about, picture if a corporation buys an entire state. Say, Wyoming or West Virginia. Gemini guesses $180 billion to $250 billion. With that investment, they'd get to control who lives in the state. So, then the corporation gets to control who the Governor is. And the two Senators, and the seat in the Congress. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but doesn't a single Senator have just a tremendous amount of pow…
Look up Vernon CA history. It is pretty much this where there are a couple city owned residential properties, rest of city is nearly purely industrial, and tenancy of these tightly controlled to shape local election outcomes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Florida_Tourism_Oversi...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> a person gets to vote twice. how do they do that?
The owner votes as themselves, and again as the corporate entity.
> 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 buddies and have them each vote as POA for theirs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 Exactly! They could do that, so the law shouldn’t treat the two situations differently. You just proved my point, not yours. > There is some reason they don't do this I’m sure they have many reasons. But that doesn’t change the fact that the…
"Protections of the corporate form"? You mean they aren't just proxies?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Then it wouldn't be a big deal to change that charter, right? Right? Right? Of course, if the actual locals are bothered by it - not us on the internet with exactly zero dogs in that fight.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Irrelevant. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan - and the First Amendment it draws upon - applies to everyone, regardless of what corporation they may or may not work for. An unemployed person is protected from defamation claims by public figures under it just fine. It does not establish any special corporate rights.
Sullivan absolutely establishes corporate rights. Otherwise, Trump could enact a ban on “fake news” and say it applies only to the corporation itself, not the staff. The staff can write whatever they want, but the corporation can’t use its printing presses, etc., to disseminate what the government considers fake news.
That's some really tortured logic.
Such an act would simply be a violation of the First Amendment (and Article I, for that matter). The corporate nature of its target is, again, entirely irrelevant.
Sullivan sets a high standard for defamation claims by public figures. That's it. They protect you saying defamatory things about Hillary Clinton as long as you don't write down "I know this is false and I'm defaming her because I hate her guts" explicitly somewhere.