[HN Gopher] Delaware bill (HB 121) to allow corporations to vote... ___________________________________________________________________ Delaware bill (HB 121) to allow corporations to vote in elections Author : lamontcg Score : 61 points Date : 2023-06-21 19:27 UTC (3 hours ago) (HTM) web link (legis.delaware.gov) (TXT) w3m dump (legis.delaware.gov) | Havoc wrote: | It's like someone took a dystopian sci-fi and thought it is a | how-to guide | onlyrealcuzzo wrote: | If you're a person and you have 10 LLCs, does that mean you get | 11 votes? | elforce002 wrote: | Interesting. This a valid question given this bill. Man, the | US is kickin'it these last years. | JumpCrisscross wrote: | The City of London does this. For purely municipal matters, in | places with a large commuter population, this can make sense--it | gives voice to the people who work alongside those who live | there. (Given present politics, a vote for workers might play | better.) | bbatsell wrote: | To elaborate a bit, "City of London" is not the _city_ of | London as one would normally imagine. It is a district only | about a square mile large that contains the central business | and financial district. It has very little residential zoning | and fewer than 10,000 residents (compared to 10 million in | greater London). A recent change in law *increased the number | of businesses receiving voting power to 32,000, and they | nominate a number of voters that scales with their number of | employees (and the total far outweighs residential votes). | | * Corrected wording to clarify that law change only increases | the number of businesses -- businesses have had the franchise | in City of London for centuries. h/t JumpCrisscross | JumpCrisscross wrote: | > _recent law change allows for 32,000 businesses to receive | voting power_ | | If I remember correctly, the corporate vote traces precedent | through guild votes. | [deleted] | ThunderSizzle wrote: | Do the workers get a vote, or just the corporation? | | I think every person should have a say in the laws where they | live, and that includes where they work. Sadly most people get | one vote based on one address | Niksko wrote: | Which do you think? Of course the corporations. | | In Melbourne, Australia, the local government that covers the | downtown area and a few surrounding suburbs gives 2 votes to | businesses and 1 vote to residents. Guess what kind of policy | exists? Highly pro business, growing inequality for | residents. | smeyer wrote: | There's a big difference between giving a voice to "the people | who work [there] " versus to the people who own businesses | there. | JumpCrisscross wrote: | > _a big difference between giving a voice to "the people who | work [there] " versus to the people who own businesses there_ | | There is, and in it a tradeoff. The businesses will | prioritise growth over liveability and working conditions. | Workers working conditions; both will select for incumbency. | Residents (within and without) want living conditions and, if | they're economically literate, competition in both business | and labour. | | It's an interesting topic that doesn't deserve dismissal at | face value. | xbar wrote: | It absolutely deserves dismissal at face value. | nostromo wrote: | It's not so crazy if you follow Delaware history. | | Let's say you live in Baltimore but also own a house in a small | resort town. In Delaware, that town can decide to let you vote in | Baltimore and at your vacation home. | | Legally they do this by saying city elections are open to both | residents and property owners (regardless of where they live). | | That all seems pretty reasonable for small resort towns. But a | lot of property is owned by trusts, llcs, and corporations. So | this would include those property owners as well. | nonethewiser wrote: | Thank you for steelmanning this. Most of the other comments | resolve to textual downvotes. I don't necessarily blame people | for this but it makes for useless discussion. | ineedasername wrote: | I don't think that the massive and countless # "artificial" | entities that incorporate in Delaware for the purpose of legal | arbitrage should have a say in how the actual people that | actually live in the state go about living the lives on a daily | basis. Even following Delaware history, it does in fact seem | crazy to me. | nostromo wrote: | This isn't about all Delaware corporations, it'd only allow | corporations that own property in the tiny town of Seaford to | vote in Seaford. | 1970-01-01 wrote: | Allow us to execute corporations and we have a deal. | teagee wrote: | Seaford, the city to which this would apply, was once regarded as | "The Nylon Capital of the World"! | | https://www.capegazette.com/affiliate-post/remembering-nylon... | tedunangst wrote: | Present charter: https://charters.delaware.gov/seaford.shtml | abeppu wrote: | Is it normal for the state legislature to make changes to a city | charter? Why Seaford? | | The title and synopsis are hiding some important info here. | | - currently 'bona fide resident' requires owning property for 6 | months | | - with the changes in the bill, natural persons don't need to own | property to be qualified to vote, but corporations do | | - and non-resident natural persons who own property in the city | are also eligible | | So unfortunately it is _not_ as easy as creating a bunch of shell | corporations to create a big external voting block; you also have | to be able to buy property for each of them. | | https://legis.delaware.gov/json/BillDetail/GenerateHtmlDocum... | JumpCrisscross wrote: | > _Is it normal for the state legislature to make changes to a | city charter? Why Seaford?_ | | Depends on context. New York City, for example, ceded control | to Albany after going bankrupt. The same path appears proximate | for San Francisco. | | In this case it looks like enabling legislation. Dover isn't | giving Seaford's corporations a vote. It's giving Seaford the | right to give corporations a vote. | abeppu wrote: | > In this case it looks like enabling legislation. Dover | isn't giving Seaford's corporations a vote. It's giving | Seaford the right to give corporations a vote. | | What leads you to say this? I'm a layperson so I may be | missing something, but the language that the bill adds as | section 7(A)(2) seems like it is saying (property-owning) | corporations are qualified voters, and 7(B) doesn't seem like | it gives the city some discretion to decide among qualified | voters who can actually register. | singleshot_ wrote: | To be honest your best bet is probably a whole bunch of general | partnerships that are all general partners in a general | partnership that owns some land in town. It's going to cost you | a couple bucks to set up a LLC and even more for a corporation | but you can form a partnership for free in a bout eight words. | nescioquid wrote: | Sounds like a cottage industry in the making. | telotortium wrote: | """ View Substitute: HS 1 for HB 121 | | Introduced on: 4/20/23 | | Primary Sponsor: D. Short | | Additional Sponsor(s): Sen. Richardson | | Co-Sponsor(s): | | Long Title: AN ACT TO AMEND THE CHARTER OF THE CITY OF SEAFORD | RELATING TO THE CITY'S ABILITY TO AUTHORIZE ARTIFICIAL ENTITIES, | LIMITED LIABILITY CORPORATIONS' PARTNERSHIPS AND TRUSTS TO VOTE | IN MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS HELD IN SEAFORD. | | Original Synopsis: This bill would allow the City of Seaford to | authorize artificial entities, limited liability corporations' | partnerships and trusts to vote in Municipal elections held in | Seaford. """ | HWR_14 wrote: | You have to love that the long title doesn't say whether it is | adding or removing the ability to let corporations vote. | datenyan wrote: | The core tenant of legalise to use many word to say few thing | singleshot_ wrote: | I would dearly love to see your paraphrase of this proposed | statute. I am quite certain we could all learn something. | JohnFen wrote: | This idea is utterly and completely terrifying. I don't see how | anything but bad can come of it. | ineedasername wrote: | Stuff the ballot box! Seems like it would be relatively cheap for | a corporation(s) to register countless entities _" including but | not limited to corporations, partnerships, trusts, and limited | liability companies"_, which already register there for legal | arbitrage, and then really create their own set of rules. | animal_spirits wrote: | Freakonomics did an excellent podcast investigation on the | corruption and efficiency of the Delaware legal code regarding | corporations, bankruptcy, tax evasion and money laundering. | According to the people they interviewed, almost all laws | regarding any business practices are written not by lawmakers but | by lawyers. Honestly, I couldn't figure out whether that was good | or bad, but it seemed dishonest because lawyers aren't | responsible to adhere to the values of the constituents of the | state. | | - https://freakonomics.com/podcast/why-does-one-tiny-state-set... | danielheath wrote: | To me, that's like complaining that software requirements are | written by software people instead of user representatives; | sure, you can do it the other way around, but it largely leads | to poorly written requirements. | nonethewiser wrote: | No taxation without representation. I would prefer just dropping | the taxation personally. | cies wrote: | Why? Lobbying is already legal! | | Ahh... They (1) want to put the lobbyist out of business, or (2) | all the "good" lobbyists are working in DC so Delaware is getting | creative :) | | Do matter why, this is still another nail in the coffin of | democracy. | Fauntleroy wrote: | Damn, maybe we should protest or something? ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2023-06-21 23:00 UTC)