7 ms·

To save everyone some trouble, "some Delaware elections" refers to elections in a town that amended its charter to explicitly allow legal entities to vote.

rayiner 4mo ago
More accurately: the town charter allows non-residents to vote if they own property on the island, even if the property is owned through a corporation.
- swampthing 4mo ago
  Thanks!
ProllyInfamous 4mo ago
I have no problem with individual jurisdictions controlling how their domestic-chartered companies operate/speak/vote — particularly with the recent Hawai'ian example: [in attempts of] reversing Citizens United, by removing political speech from corporate entities. Bravo, Hawaii.
- cco 4mo ago
  This ruling is the exact opposite of the recent proposal from Hawaii. That ruling is predicated on the state having control over corporations and how they behave. This ruling in Delaware is affirming a clear path for corporations to have control over the state (county, city etc). With this ruling, it affirms a corporations ability to form air tight rule over municipal governments and operate them as they see fit. Once a corporation manufactures a majority vote in this municipality, they can then amend any rules they see fit, install their own executive leadership and have removed any corporate control over it. 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.
  - ProllyInfamous 4mo ago
    >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 have Tenth Amendment Rights – no? – what they do with it also ought'a be up to their homerulings. ---- Personally, I support Hawaii's newfound corporate speech limitation.
    - cco 4mo ago
      > 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.
      - ProllyInfamous 4mo ago
        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

rayiner 4mo ago

More accurately: the town charter allows non-residents to vote if they own property on the island, even if the property is owned through a corporation.

swampthing 4mo ago
Thanks!

ProllyInfamous 4mo ago

I have no problem with individual jurisdictions controlling how their domestic-chartered companies operate/speak/vote — particularly with the recent Hawai'ian example: [in attempts of] reversing Citizens United, by removing political speech from corporate entities. Bravo, Hawaii.

cco 4mo ago
This ruling is the exact opposite of the recent proposal from Hawaii. That ruling is predicated on the state having control over corporations and how they behave. This ruling in Delaware is affirming a clear path for corporations to have control over the state (county, city etc). With this ruling, it affirms a corporations ability to form air tight rule over municipal governments and operate them as they see fit. Once a corporation manufactures a majority vote in this municipality, they can then amend any rules they see fit, install their own executive leadership and have removed any corporate control over it. 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.
- ProllyInfamous 4mo ago
  >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 have Tenth Amendment Rights – no? – what they do with it also ought'a be up to their homerulings. ---- Personally, I support Hawaii's newfound corporate speech limitation.
  - cco 4mo ago
    > 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.
    - ProllyInfamous 4mo ago
      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