51–60 of 87 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nothing of substance will change in 2026. That goose is cooked already after all the gerry mandering
Gerrymandering only affects House and the House is overwhelmingly looking like a Democrat victory. Senate is statewide so it's innately immune to Gerrymandering. Like.... Do you even know what that word means?
I dont know what is so difficult about this for you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I thought that the "corporations are people" meme was the actual rationale for why corpos "should" be allowed to spend money on elections: spending money for political purposes is free speech, and people have the right to free speech, and corpos are people, so corpos have the right to spend money for political purposes.
>spending money for political purposes is free speech, and people have the right to free speech, and corpos are people, so corpos have the right to spend money for political purposes. From wikipedia: >The majority also held that the First Amendment's free press clause protects associations of individuals in addition to individual speakers, and further that the First Amendment does not allow prohibitions of speech bas…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Corporate Personhood" allows the corporate entity to be a responsibility sink for the owners. They alternative is that people can sue the owners/officers directly for the "actions" of the corporation.
Sure but you need to be able to get to “someone” when say the owner skips town or dies or… plus this firewall makes it so people will be more willing to build businesses.
And now you get to "nobody at all" when effectively nothing happens to the leaders the instant the need to bear accountability
> plus this firewall makes it so people will be more willing to build businesses.
Doubt.
If businesspeople want to get involved in politics, they should have the courage to run for office like anybody else. Lurking on the sidelines and waiving money around is really lame and laughable.
If your business is large enough, if you don't donate to politicians, they will target your business. The government is massive and inserts itself into business operations all the time. The inevitable results happen.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It does in one town in Delaware, at least: https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/delaware-court-upho...
The thing that stuck with me is the awful reasoning by the judge: "Judge rules Fenwick Island's corporate voting does not dilute human votes" How could corporations voting not dilute the human votes by the very nature and reason of voting in the first place?
Because you're being misled (i.e. lied to) about the actual nature of the situation.
This is a snooty vacation town shithole. Non-resident landowners have been allowed to vote here since day 1. The purpose of incorporating as a town is/was essentially to have a town that's run by business. Think like City of Industry CA fucked the Hamptons, this is the kid.
Back when they did this in 1950-whatever this worked fine. All the land was owned by McScumbag A, McScumbag B and McScumbag C who invariably lived in DC, NYC, etc, etc. Back then people owned vacation cottages, businesses, motels, etc, etc, in their own name. So, as everything moved to LLCs and whatnot over the years the scummy developers and investors slowly lost influence to the "filthy townies" or whatever and so in 2000-whatever they amended their constitution to allow their LLCs to vote and now, here we are litigating the implications in court.
Yeah, it's stupid on like a dozen different levels but this isn't the "random normal-ish town goes apeshit and decide to let DuPont vote" it's being cast as. This town was already apeshit, it's just being fought about in court.
And INB4 anyone puts words in my mouth, no I don't support the ruling.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>spending money for political purposes is free speech, and people have the right to free speech, and corpos are people, so corpos have the right to spend money for political purposes. From wikipedia: >The majority also held that the First Amendment's free press clause protects associations of individuals in addition to individual speakers, and further that the First Amendment does not allow prohibitions of speech bas…
The flaw in this reasoning is that corporations are not merely associations of people; they are a special kind of association of people, which can be regulated specially. Hence, I think, why some have stripped away this motivated language and reduced it to the more honest and obviously absurd "corporations are people too."
You realize republicans can make the same argument to bash unions?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No need for that. People will ask their favorite AI who to vote for anyway.
I got mine to build me an interactive quiz for the UK elections, unsure if that's better or worse... It felt not so biased but who knows right?