I hope we can agree that allowing corporations to vote in any kind of political process is taking corporate personhood too far

▲

rayiner 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

In this case, I don’t agree. The municipal charter here allows non-residents who own property on the island to vote. Why should it be different whether I own the property in my own name, or I own a corporation that in turn owns the property?

To the extent there’s a problem here, the problem is the municipal charter essentially allows “property to vote.” That seems to be the real problem.

▲

bluefirebrand 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Because owning a corporation becomes a way for you to vote twice, once on your own behalf, once on behalf of your corporation.

This seems like an obvious problem

▲

soco 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Then it wouldn't be a big deal to change that charter, right? Right? Right? Of course, if the actual locals are bothered by it - not us on the internet with exactly zero dogs in that fight.

	▲	rayiner 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		The charter in question has allowed non-resident voting since the 1950s.

▲

klaff 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I absolutely agree. They shouldn't be able to vote and they shouldn't have free speech rights. Corporations are a legal structure - a way to allow risk sharing to encourage investment that would otherwise maybe not happen if one had to risk everything in order to invest. But when we choose to allow that, and it is a choice, we should not give those entities the rights of people. It is simply absurd.