It’s funny because of the idea that corporations are people and deserve rights, but it would be instantly shot down if I set up way too many corporations to get communists elected to all the positions
It’s extremely easy, and I believe this bill also allows for them to vote by proxy, which exacerbates that concern. But on the other hand, they do need to own property, so it isn’t a totally costless endevour.
The corporations themselves cannot vote. This law allows the owner of the corporation to vote even if they do not live within the city proper. No one can vote twice - whether you live in the city and own a corporation or own multiple corporations. And it’s only for corporations that own property. While it’s easy to imagine this backfiring, the steelman position is - you own a small business one town over, you have a significant role in the local economy, giving you one vote the same as any resident sounds pretty reasonable. Rich folk who own a house and live their 2 months out of the year are potentially eligible to vote as well, so it’s potentially more justified that the owner of the local bakery gets to vote too. Could this end up being horribly abused? I don’t know that there are enough safeguards against it. But this doesn’t immediately scream the end of democracy to me.
I guess my main concern would be, are these owners or part-time residents voting elsewhere also? Would give new meaning to “vote early, vote often” if so.
In my humble opinion, just as “no taxation without representation” is a thing the gov should abide by; “no representation without taxation” is probably good too. If these company’s want to vote, have them pay 50% of all the money they every make to taxes.
Actually, not even then. If they want to vote, even if they paid 99% of their profits towards taxes to vote it would be a bad idea.
The government already doesn’t abide by that principle. Votes cast by people in left-leaning areas count for a small fraction of what votes cast in right-leaning areas count for. Those convicted of a crime may not vote at all. Nor those without citizenship. Yet all of these groups pay taxes.
If taxation without representation were generally considered revolution-worthy, as it once was, there would have been a revolution decades ago.
You have no criticism from me on this. Companies either should have no say in politics at all, or a whole shit ton of actual, meaningful penalties for abuse if they do.
I’d say tax them equivalent to all the individuals in the company combined. If there’s a 1000 employees, charge them the same you’d take 1000 people all at once. Then maybe triple it to account for the fact that they amplify the efforts of those people many times over.
Sydney Australia allows businesses to vote in local elections. Businesses get 2 votes, humans get 1. So you don’t even need to own multiple companies to have an advantage over the commoners - it’s built right into the system!
At that point… they could just make it official and say “$1 net worth = 1 vote”.
It’s not like reality is that far from that already, when “1 person = 1 vote” can only cast their vote on a representative financed by someome with large enough net worth, then discard a bunch of “1 person” votes, and end up with “1 representative = 1 vote” who can further be lobbied based on someone’s or some company’s net worth.
That’s an error (or a typo). Those companies aren’t “headquartered” there, but they are incorporated there.
The typical large American public company is incorporated in Delaware, with their stock listed on an exchange in New York, and headquartered wherever they actually do their business: San Francisco or Houston or Chicago or Atlanta whatever. Delaware and New York monopolize their respective segment of the business of the administrative paperwork of being a registered company. As another example, older companies that have physical stock certificates mostly have them locked up in a vault in NYC, with the ownership of the certificates just changing over in a ledger with every stock trade (millions per day) without the actual paper certificates being touched.
Despite my reaction, I do recall hearing a tax dodge involving hundreds of international companies being “headquartered” in this one tiny building somewhere. I’m pretty certain there’s some legal and financial chicanery where “headquartered” might not be a typo.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !politics@beehaw.org
In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it’s a political happening, you can post it here.
Guidelines for submissions:
Where possible, post the original source of information.
If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
What a shock that this is the state where Biden is from. What a shock.
Why? Is this an anti-Citizen’s United demonstration?
No it’s basically for Citizens United. Biden is a NeoLib.
Has he ever been pro-Citizen’s United?
Simply calling him NeoLib seems like a blanket term that probably applies to some of his stances but not others.
What an absolutely awful idea.
I’m not too surprised. The City of London does the same.
For clarity’s sake, I think it’s worth pointing out that you’re talking about the City of London, the 1 square mile with a population of under 10,000.
And Seaford, Delaware also has a population less than 10,000.
But I agree it is important to clarify which of the two Londons I’m talking about.
I think I just threw up in my mouth a little bit. This has to be nipped in the bud IMMEDIATELY. Can’t be giving them ideas.
It’s funny because of the idea that corporations are people and deserve rights, but it would be instantly shot down if I set up way too many corporations to get communists elected to all the positions
Not American, but is that even constitutional?
It doesn’t feel constitutional, but you can make any law as long as no one takes you to court.
Not American, but wondering how easy it is for foreigners to control US corporations.
It’s extremely easy, and I believe this bill also allows for them to vote by proxy, which exacerbates that concern. But on the other hand, they do need to own property, so it isn’t a totally costless endevour.
From the article:
So what you’re saying is that I can already spin up extra LLCs and get extra ballots?
The corporations themselves cannot vote. This law allows the owner of the corporation to vote even if they do not live within the city proper. No one can vote twice - whether you live in the city and own a corporation or own multiple corporations. And it’s only for corporations that own property. While it’s easy to imagine this backfiring, the steelman position is - you own a small business one town over, you have a significant role in the local economy, giving you one vote the same as any resident sounds pretty reasonable. Rich folk who own a house and live their 2 months out of the year are potentially eligible to vote as well, so it’s potentially more justified that the owner of the local bakery gets to vote too. Could this end up being horribly abused? I don’t know that there are enough safeguards against it. But this doesn’t immediately scream the end of democracy to me.
But it definitely screams the death of a town when corporate find a way to game the system.
I guess my main concern would be, are these owners or part-time residents voting elsewhere also? Would give new meaning to “vote early, vote often” if so.
With this SCOTUS constitutionality no longer matters.
Is it bad that I thought was already the case post Citizens United?
When corporations get inprisoned for commiting crimes maybe then i would think let them voting could be good.
Wow I really hate living here.
This is insane
What - and I cannot emphasize this next part enough - the fuck
This sounds like the stupidest idea I’ve ever heard (so far, who knows what else will they think of).
oh so like how the trade federation has a senate seat in the prequels. totally makes sense guys /s
In my humble opinion, just as “no taxation without representation” is a thing the gov should abide by; “no representation without taxation” is probably good too. If these company’s want to vote, have them pay 50% of all the money they every make to taxes.
Actually, not even then. If they want to vote, even if they paid 99% of their profits towards taxes to vote it would be a bad idea.
The government already doesn’t abide by that principle. Votes cast by people in left-leaning areas count for a small fraction of what votes cast in right-leaning areas count for. Those convicted of a crime may not vote at all. Nor those without citizenship. Yet all of these groups pay taxes.
If taxation without representation were generally considered revolution-worthy, as it once was, there would have been a revolution decades ago.
Any entity that cannot be executed or imprisoned does not have to navigate the same fears and dangers of citizen beings.
Corps as persons is one of the most monstrous ideas ever. Yes, legally it made some things easier, but we see the outcome.
The whole idea and rules regarding incorporation needs to be revamped from the ground up.
I would consider it if owners were punished for all crimes committed by the company by any member. And not by fines.
You have no criticism from me on this. Companies either should have no say in politics at all, or a whole shit ton of actual, meaningful penalties for abuse if they do.
Tax them as an individual.
I’d say tax them equivalent to all the individuals in the company combined. If there’s a 1000 employees, charge them the same you’d take 1000 people all at once. Then maybe triple it to account for the fact that they amplify the efforts of those people many times over.
If an entity is not subject to the legal restrictions of an individual, it should not benefit from the legal rights of an individual.
Yeah, pretty much.
Isn’t it possible for one person to create multiple LLCs? Hence being able to vote multiple times?
Sydney Australia allows businesses to vote in local elections. Businesses get 2 votes, humans get 1. So you don’t even need to own multiple companies to have an advantage over the commoners - it’s built right into the system!
Yes. This is possibly the whole point.
At that point… they could just make it official and say “$1 net worth = 1 vote”.
It’s not like reality is that far from that already, when “1 person = 1 vote” can only cast their vote on a representative financed by someome with large enough net worth, then discard a bunch of “1 person” votes, and end up with “1 representative = 1 vote” who can further be lobbied based on someone’s or some company’s net worth.
What.
That’s an error (or a typo). Those companies aren’t “headquartered” there, but they are incorporated there.
The typical large American public company is incorporated in Delaware, with their stock listed on an exchange in New York, and headquartered wherever they actually do their business: San Francisco or Houston or Chicago or Atlanta whatever. Delaware and New York monopolize their respective segment of the business of the administrative paperwork of being a registered company. As another example, older companies that have physical stock certificates mostly have them locked up in a vault in NYC, with the ownership of the certificates just changing over in a ledger with every stock trade (millions per day) without the actual paper certificates being touched.
Despite my reaction, I do recall hearing a tax dodge involving hundreds of international companies being “headquartered” in this one tiny building somewhere. I’m pretty certain there’s some legal and financial chicanery where “headquartered” might not be a typo.