Live data from Hacker News

Corporations can vote in some Delaware elections, judge says

news.bloomberglaw.com

261–269 of 269 posts

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

#261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> First, the rich have unimaginably more power in changing people's minds If that was true everyone would love billionaires. I'm fascinated by the cluelessness of this assertion! The actual research on campaign finance says that once you've managed to inform the voters about what you stand for and who you are, further spending does very little. > simply being a contest of who can buy enough ad space to brainwash peop…

> If that was true everyone would love billionaires. I'm fascinated by the cluelessness of this assertion!

Relative to how many of them actively campaign against our basic interests, I would say people disproportionately love billionaires.

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

#262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you could just look at corporations by looking at their members then there would be no need for a legal fiction, because the law could also just look at the members. But that's not at all what happens. "Meta, Inc." is not just a shorthand way of naming all the shareholders of Meta, Inc. It is a separate legal entity, owned by but not identical to the shareholders. Why do people bother making corporations in the fi…

I agree that corporations aren't just shorthands for their shareholders. That's why I think the qualifiers "towards a unified goal" and "under a binding normative instrument" are important. Specially the latter one. LLCs, in particular, are just one type of corporation and tend to have a well defined set of laws and agreements backing them, with the primary purpose of limiting liabilities towards the owners. Personal…

Nothing wrong with being philosophical in general. But not so much when talking about how things actually are in a case where there’s very little philosophy behind the setup.

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

#263

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.

Not always... Bentonville is actually pretty great: https://youtu.be/sIwslwoQUKY

Bentonville is not "pretty great". Take it from someone who lived there for decades before the current marketing push.

The only things that make Bentonville "pretty great" are available in all of the surrounding cities.

Rogers, Lowell, Springdale, Fayetteville, Bella Vista. ALL OF THEM are better than Bentonville in spades. Bentonville is riding on their coattails.

Bentonville DOES NOT have a single national retailer other than Walmart in its city limits. Walmart makes sure of it by owning over half the land in town. The only competing grocer is an employee owned co-op that Walmart could not succeed in starving out like they did all the IGAs and local markets.

It is car centric as hell, despite the meager efforts they've been making with the NWA Regional Greenway (which was started by Rogers and Fayetteville and Bentonville initially resisted). They destroyed a long standing low income community so they could widen 8th for Walmart. You might think, well they're courting mountain bikers with the greenway and the mountain biking trails, but actually try to get anywhere and live on a bike. I did. The greenway gets you around completely separated from anywhere you might want to go. You WILL have to get on city streets or ride in the grass, hoping that it's not hiding a 2ft deep ditch. If you get on city streets, you WILL be used for target practice. They might have built infrastructure, but the people haven't changed, and for 25 years I heard people joking about running down cyclists for shits and giggles. People in huge lifted trucks will turn right on red over you while you have a walk sign to cross.

It has gradually developed downtown to be a little more urban, but not without major consequences. They have in the past decade destroyed innumberable small apartment complexes, triplexes and duplexes in downtown so that out of town executives and magnates can come buy megamansions on Central Ave, the literal main street through town. There can be no thriving downtown, no business to support the square and its tax base, when these mansions are eating the density that was supporting the tax base.

But they added few bike paths and MTB trails, a building you can ride a bike up, and a bunch of Private Equity owned restaurants, so I guess that's worth the systemic displacement of longtime residents and the short sale of the city's future for some biking tourism dollars. OH, and that gaudy display of wealth Alice Walton built, Crystal Bridges. It's nice that they put an installation in specifically to remind the locals just how far above them they are. Crystal Bridges is the Walton's "Bezos Balls". I would have preferred that the woman spend that money at the time paving the ditches in town so people can walk around without stepping in the street. OR JUST PAY LOCAL TAXES!!!!

You want retail? Dick's Sporting Goods, Target, Best Buy, Whole Foods, Marshalls, B&N, Pier 1, Staple, Lowes, Kohls, Office Depot, Petco, Ross, Northwest Arkansas Mall and The Pinnacle Hills Promenade are all in Rogers.

You want a night out? Good fucking luck in Bentonville, it's a company town, people are gone in the evenings and your options for dinner suck. There are basically no entertainment options in town. There's the movie theater that serves drinks, and I think Great Day Skate Place might count if you don't mind being sober and surrounded by families with kids. Fuck you if you want a club or lounge though. Double fuck you if you can't afford to pay rent in Bentonville (don't forget Walmart has spent half a century depressing real wages in Northwest Arkansas) and have to live in Centerton, Gravette, or Highfill. All the bars and night life are in Springdale and Fayetteville.

Want a fancy night out? Ruth's Chris, Theo's, Oak, Bordinos, and Atlas are all in either Rogers or Fayetteville. River Grille technically counts for you, but you have to drive like you're leaving Bentonville for Pea Ridge to get there.

Wanna go hiking? Fayetteville. Wanna go golfing? Bella Vista and Rogers. Wanna see a movie that isn't the top 4 newest releases? Rogers, Springdale, Fayetteville. Wanna buy health food? Whole Foods or Cook's in Rogers.

You want local history? Go to Pea Ridge National Military Park. Go to the Daisy BB gun museum in Rogers, go to the Shiloh Museum for Ozark History in Springdale. Go to the Siloam Springs museum. Go to the Clinton House in Fayetteville. The Museum of Native American History has only been there for a few years. All these other museums have been entrenched. I guess the Amazeum is cool for kids but you probably look weird if you try to go in yourself.

Rogers has the water park, the aquarium, the AMP (major concert venue). Fayetteville hosts the performing arts at Walton Arts Center and the UofA Theater. Fayetteville has all the live music at small bar venues like George's Majestic Lounge. All the karaoke is on Dickson St.

There is not even a bowling alley in Bentonville.

Bentonville is not great. Bentonville is a shitville void smack dab in a region it refuses to participate in. Bentonville is a puppet of the Waltons and they make it no secret in the Walmart Home Office orientation, that Sam Walton wanted the city to remain small and the lack of any resources to actually live life has been by design. Only in the last 10 years have they even sort of kind of started to renege on that and start to actually build it up some, and that was only because there was major brain drain because no one wanted to live there.

Whatever caused you to think Bentonville is great has been the result of a relentless marketing push.

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

#264
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…

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, e…

> Why can't both of those be true? I don't see any contradiction between them.

"Corporations aren't people" and "corporations are singular entities unto themselves capable of exercising independent agency" are direct contradictions.

> 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

Corporations are treated as persons as a legal fiction to ensure that the methods for applying the law to their activities remains consistent and uncomplicated.

No legal framework has ever treated corporations as natural persons able to formulate their own autonomous intentions and act on those intentions unilaterally. The law is not unaware of its own abstractions.

The arguments for restricting "corporate speech" are confounding these distinct concepts together. If we are attributing rights only to natural persons, and hold that legal persons that are not natural persons do not possess rights on that account, then by the same account, we cannot attribute the power of speech to corporations, and must understand any speech that appears to originate with them as actually the product of the people who are merely using the corporation as a method of coordination.

If we are attributing the power of speech to corporations, then we must likewise recognize their right to speak freely. In fact, the first amendment explicitly protects speech itself without regard to its origin, such that any entity capable of speech must by that very fact have the right to free speech.

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

#265
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…

The contradiction clears up when you realize that corporations are legal fiction without rights, merely privileges granted to them. You can act in your capacity as a person and exercise your rights, taking on personal liability. You can act via a fictive legal proxy, which has no rights and shield yourself from some liability. Trying to blur those two is madness.

> The contradiction clears up when you realize that corporations are legal fiction without rights, merely privileges granted to them.

That's not really correct. Corporations are recognized as distinct entities as a legal fiction to make application of law to them easier, but the law "pierces the corporate veil" routinely where that legal fiction is not applicable, and in those cases, recognizes the factual nature of corporations merely as methods of coordination employed by the underlying people using them.

> You can act via a fictive legal proxy, which has no rights and shield yourself from some liability.

No, this is definitely not correct. Limited liability implies that you can separate your financial accounts from that of the business, such that creditors can't target your personal assets to cover the debts of the organization, but doesn't necessarily shield you from legal liability for the actions you personally undertake in with in the context of the business.

The idea that the organization has no rights insofar as it is being regarded as an entity unto itself is also false, as a great deal of extant jurisprudence demonstrates.

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

#266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh? Which industry regularly uses this as a part of standard business for consumers? Unless... you're just pretending to be too obtuse to understand the extremely obvious implication here.

As with asbestos, it (diamorphine) has some limited legitimate uses. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3953108

Ah, so "essentially none because this was a pretty bad attempt at a retort". Gotcha!

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

#267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I apologize for being dismissive. You have read this a little more closely than I have. Do you think Section 9A(3), which more or less says these rules would be construed under one person/entity, one vote would break your plan? I believe if you tried to have thirty voters tied to one parcel of land by joint tenancy, that would be how the court stops you. The plaintiff here is arguing vote dilution, but vote dilution…

IANAA. My reading is that "one person/entity one vote" is an extension of the common "one person one vote" where say owning two pieces of real estate or other qualification for an election means you still just get one vote (rather than multiple by having more stake in the outcome). Read the examples around those sections. There might be an angle where if a given person has the voting POA from two different entities,…

If there are thirty companies, and each owns a piece of land, one entity/one vote is pretty clearly observed.

If those thirty companies reconfigure their holdings so they each own one thirtieth of each of thirty parcels, under your model all of a sudden each company has thirty votes.

I believe if you tried to exploit the ambiguity in the law in a way that mattered enough for anyone to care, you would catch a lawsuit predicated on the idea that the one entity/one vote concept was violated by this trick. I think a court would approve of the idea.

I still agree with you that this law is poor, I just don’t think this exploit flies in court. But no one knows until they try.

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

#268
post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>This ruling is the exact opposite of the recent proposal from Hawaii. Understood, but state-control of corporate charters (in both cases) is the underlying enabler . >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. My original claim is that states ought'a…

> Personally, I support Hawaii's newfound corporate speech limitation. Couldn't agree more! My point is that it is the same underlying power, but one is using the power to maintain and grow powers over corps, the other using the same power to cede it.

This was my original point, as well; but I fumbled on the communicative part – in my more-balkanized fantasies: it is my hope that the Federal System successfully tears itself apart, in its many differences.

That such a Constitution allows such jurisdictional diversity is kind of the entire point of Its governing, I'guess. #neat

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

#269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IANAA. My reading is that "one person/entity one vote" is an extension of the common "one person one vote" where say owning two pieces of real estate or other qualification for an election means you still just get one vote (rather than multiple by having more stake in the outcome). Read the examples around those sections. There might be an angle where if a given person has the voting POA from two different entities,…

If there are thirty companies, and each owns a piece of land, one entity/one vote is pretty clearly observed. If those thirty companies reconfigure their holdings so they each own one thirtieth of each of thirty parcels, under your model all of a sudden each company has thirty votes. I believe if you tried to exploit the ambiguity in the law in a way that mattered enough for anyone to care, you would catch a lawsuit…

> If those thirty companies reconfigure their holdings so they each own one thirtieth of each of thirty parcels, under your model all of a sudden each company has thirty votes.

No, because this is exactly what "one entity/one vote" directly limits. Each entity is still limited to a single vote.

I think if an outsider overtly bought a parcel, created hundreds or thousands of Delaware entities, titled that parcel over to all of them jointly, and tried to register them all to vote, we'd end up with a test case that the court might strike down. But I'd think someone exploiting it at scale, or a politically connected insider for whom the voting registrar looked the other way might get away with it.

Post reply on HN