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 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

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 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Thanks!

▲

ProllyInfamous 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

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 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		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.