[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)