Next step to citizenship
Via Crooks and Liars comes notice of this proposal for corporate/business voting right and elected official in municipal elections, except for school elections (hat tip Dan B.):
Rep. Steve Lavin has introduced HB485,
A BILL FOR AN ACT ENTITLED: “AN ACT REVISING ELIGIBILITY TO VOTE IN MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS AND TO FILE FOR CANDIDACY FOR MUNICIPAL ELECTED OFFICE; ALLOWING A QUALIFIED NONRESIDENT PROPERTY OWNER OR DESIGNEE OF AN ENTITY TO VOTE IN MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS AND TO FILE FOR CANDIDACY FOR MUNICIPAL ELECTED OFFICE; AND AMENDING SECTIONS 7-1-4121, 7-4-4104, 7-4-4301, AND 7-4-4401, MCA.”
Lifted from an e-mail from Linda Beale in response to a short note from me:
This law does definitely include a section that allows any company that owns real property in a municipality to designate one of its officers to vote for it in municipal elections. Talk about plutocracy—now some billionaire managers/shareholders will get TWO votes, compared to ordinary persons who actually live in, and enjoy the beneifts and bear the burdens of the elected officials’ decisions. Plus nonresident property owners get to dilute the locals’ interests as well. This is clearly a part of the “property is the only right we really care about” trend, which in my perspective personifies most of the S Ct’s jurisdiction decisions on rights…..
I have hear/read some arguments that this bill, and bills of its kind, might be an attempt to address corporate taxation through the back door (no taxation w/o representation, goes the misguided and incorrect saying goes).
If the rights wants to, and I cannot say after reading Citizens that I disagree with them, that corporate personhood was not at issue in that case, fine. Then we have to assume it was based on the freedom to associate/freedom of speech. But freedom of speech is not at issue here. I cannot think of an instance where Constitutional law has equated voting rights with freedom of speech/associate.
In other words, I would like the right to come up with a cogent legal analysis of where this (and by this, I mean legislation akin to the MT bill which is pushing the influence corporations can have on the political process) is going, and whether they believe that corporations are persons (i.e., are taxed and have the right to vote), or a collection of voters/people/speakers who are exercising THEIR rights through the medium of the corporation (i.e., what CU v FEC was predicated on).
Why stop at two? I’m sure some enterprising billionaire could create enough entities to control the result.
Indeed, anyone who owns property in the state can set up LLCs that are the legal owners of the properties for the purpose of creating voting blocks.
Yes, because one voice one vote is…?
Poll tax anyone?
I am having a very difficult time recognizing today’s Republican Party. How in the world did the generation that gave us Civil Rights spawn this cadre of monsters? It is hard to be a baby boomer these days and watch everything we believed in get trampled on every single day by these right wingers.
What Lord said.
Back when I was in the permitting business many developers would separate a large subdivision under construction into ‘Phases’ and ‘Sectors’ with each such organized under a different LLC (Limited Liability Corporation) even though the partners might entirely overlap from one to another. There are all kinds of reasons to do this most of which are perfectly innocuous. But under this law any large developer could use preliminary subdivision approval to immediate create dozens of new voting ‘citizens’ one for each LLC they were planning anyway.
Now in practice large developers of suburban subdivisions have such political juice that they already own the County or City Council and Planning Commission, so in those cases maybe this One Corp, One Vote law wouldn’t make that much difference. But most places it is absurdly easy and cheap to set up multiple LLCs and the possibilities go far beyond a subdivision of single family homes. Basically this law just gives lawyers and their business clients a license to coin voters at will. And generally corporations can create corporations out of themselves at will and then if they really get creative form partnerships between them.
Good business for State Secretaries of State who will have to hire extra help to sign off and stamp corporation papers and collect fees. But a bad business for democracy.
I can think of legitimate reasons that Montana might want such a law. It would be completely crazy on the coasts.
Of course, the supreme court would extend it nationwide.
This country is too big with too diverse interests to be a single country.
Goodwin
i can’t see any reasons for montana.
are we going to give the vote in America to the House of Lords in England because so many of them own property in America?
Hey, how about China? They have a huge stake in American bonds. Surely they should have a say in how we run our country.