Montana Bill Would Give Corporations The Right To Vote

[TruthOut10]

A bill introduced by Montana state Rep. Steve Lavin would give corporations the right to vote in municipal elections:


Provision for vote by corporate property owner. (1) Subject to subsection (2), if a firm, partnership, company, or corporation owns real property within the municipality, the president, vice president, secretary, or other designee of the entity is eligible to vote in a municipal election as provided in [section 1].

(2) The individual who is designated to vote by the entity is subject to the provisions of [section 1] and shall also provide to the election administrator documentation of the entity’s registration with the secretary of state under 35-1-217 and proof of the individual’s designation to vote on behalf of the entity.

The idea that “corporations are people, my friend” as Mitt Romney put it, is sadly common among conservative lawmakers. Most significantly of all, the five conservative justices voted in Citizens United v. FEC to permit corporations to spend unlimited money to influence elections. Actually giving corporations the right to vote, however, is quite a step beyond what even this Supreme Court has embraced.

The bill does contain some limits on these new corporate voting rights. Most significantly, corporations would not be entitled to vote in “school elections,” and the bill only applies to municipal elections. So state and federal elections would remain beyond the reach of the new corporate voters.

Montana Bill Would Give Corporations The Right To Vote | ThinkProgress

 

[Grandma]

Interesting. This is the sort of thing that might cause the Court to reverse their awful ruling.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

So disturbing. Corporations run the government and write all the laws in their favor anyway, though. Almost time for the pitchforks, I believe. I hope the first corp burned at the stake is Monsanto.

 

[whitehall]

One vote if the corporation owns property within the district. What's all the panic about? Democrats taught a long standing veteran poll official that it was OK to vote two or three times if her daughter couldn't make it to the polls.

 

[jasonnfree]

One vote if the corporation owns property within the district. What's all the panic about? Democrats taught a long standing veteran poll official that it was OK to vote two or three times if her daughter couldn't make it to the polls.

What if it's an international corporation? Still ok for them to vote?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

A bill introduced by Montana state Rep. Steve Lavin would give corporations the right to vote in municipal elections:


Provision for vote by corporate property owner. (1) Subject to subsection (2), if a firm, partnership, company, or corporation owns real property within the municipality, the president, vice president, secretary, or other designee of the entity is eligible to vote in a municipal election as provided in [section 1].

(2) The individual who is designated to vote by the entity is subject to the provisions of [section 1] and shall also provide to the election administrator documentation of the entity’s registration with the secretary of state under 35-1-217 and proof of the individual’s designation to vote on behalf of the entity.

The idea that “corporations are people, my friend” as Mitt Romney put it, is sadly common among conservative lawmakers. Most significantly of all, the five conservative justices voted in Citizens United v. FEC to permit corporations to spend unlimited money to influence elections. Actually giving corporations the right to vote, however, is quite a step beyond what even this Supreme Court has embraced.

The bill does contain some limits on these new corporate voting rights. Most significantly, corporations would not be entitled to vote in “school elections,” and the bill only applies to municipal elections. So state and federal elections would remain beyond the reach of the new corporate voters.

Montana Bill Would Give Corporations The Right To Vote | ThinkProgress

Where the fuck do you people keep your brains? Do you realize this country fought a fracking war over taxation without representation? ARe you aware that even felons who are prevented from voting can legally vote on bond issues of taxation in most jurisdictions?

 

[editec]

You know I would respond "UNbelievable" but nowadays nothing coming from our DUELOPOLISTS, however insane, is UNbelievable.

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

The lowlife cocksuckers of the earth would grant bloodless entities the rights of natural born persons.

John Roberts, nutball hero, is the man who brought us Obamacare and Citizens United. That is funny as hell. Businesses have abandoned their duties to communities as the filthy god damned ReagaNUt scum who believe the profit motive is more sacred than the host organism (the US per se) moved heaven and earth to enfranchise bloodless entities at the expense of natural born persons.

Meanwhile, rational people will believe corporations are people when a corporation is buried at Arlington.

 

[Missourian]

Seems reasonable to me.

In most municipal elections non-resident property owners are afforded voting rights, as the decisions made affect them directly.

I vote in a municipal election where I own property for business but do not reside...as a sole proprietorship, this is not challenged...but I would be denied that right if I changed my businesses structure to an S or C corperation.

The impact of local legislation and taxation on my property would not have changed, only my ability to have a voice in those decisions.

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

Seems reasonable to me.

In most municipal elections non-resident property owners are afforded voting rights, as the decisions made affect them directly.

I vote in a municipal election where I own property for business but do not reside...as a sole proprietorship, this is not challenged...but I would be denied that right if I changed my businesses structure to an S or C corperation.

The impact of local legislation and taxation on my property would not have changed, only my ability to have a voice in those decisions.

Apparently that jurisdiction is enlightened in the sense that natural born persons get a vote while bloodless entities do not.

 

[kiwiman127]

Anyway you look at it, it's a double vote by an individual unless the person representing the corporations fails to vote as an individual voter.

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

Anyway you look at it, it's a double vote by an individual unless the person representing the corporations fails to vote as an individual voter.

If I'm reading your post accurately, you just fell into the trap. The issue isn't duplicate votes, but that is one corporations are prepared to fight.

With all due respect, the issue is a simple one: does the constitution give the right to vote to bloodless entities and the answer is "No." That camel's nose first got under the tent when the railroad men writing the 14th Amendment excised "natural born" from the original phrase "natural born persons" throughout the amendment. These same men later induced a court clerk to misrepresent SCOUTUS' decision in the notes of the Santa Clara case (1880s).

More recently, nutball hero John Roberts (the bag man between Baker and Rehnquist in 2000) led a gaggle of bought-and-paid-for nutballs in black robes to open the door to that right with their decision in CITIZENS UNITED. Lest some halfwit believe me to be one of the fake liberal fascists passing for liberal today, KELO is an equal legal abomination from the freakshow side of the court.

Neither party has demonstrated as much substantive interest in constitutional limits as in constitutional imperatives since affirmative action was accepted. Like Obamacare, corporations were behind it, but others got the blame. Unlike Obamacare, there were legitimate moral and legal cases for suspending the constitution for maybe twenty years to support fully enfranchising women and racial minorities previously disenfranchised by law. At this point aa is well past its prime, causing more problems than it is paying to the nation in benefits. The only moral argument for retaining aa these days is if it is changed from race and sex to material condition and limited to educational opportunities.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Then make unions and governments "people" under the law and let them vote also.

 

[kiwiman127]

Anyway you look at it, it's a double vote by an individual unless the person representing the corporations fails to vote as an individual voter.

If I'm reading your post accurately, you just fell into the trap. The issue isn't duplicate votes, but that is one corporations are prepared to fight.

With all due respect, the issue is a simple one: does the constitution give the right to vote to bloodless entities and the answer is "No." That camel's nose first got under the tent when the railroad men writing the 14th Amendment excised "natural born" from the original phrase "natural born persons" throughout the amendment. These same men later induced a court clerk to misrepresent SCOUTUS' decision in the notes of the Santa Clara case (1880s).

More recently, nutball hero John Roberts (the bag man between Baker and Rehnquist in 2000) led a gaggle of bought-and-paid-for nutballs in black robes to open the door to that right with their decision in CITIZENS UNITED. Lest some halfwit believe me to be one of the fake liberal fascists passing for liberal today, KELO is an equal legal abomination from the freakshow side of the court.

Neither party has demonstrated as much substantive interest in constitutional limits as in constitutional imperatives since affirmative action was accepted. Like Obamacare, corporations were behind it, but others got the blame. Unlike Obamacare, there were legitimate moral and legal cases for suspending the constitution for maybe twenty years to support fully enfranchising women and racial minorities previously disenfranchised by law. At this point aa is well past its prime, causing more problems than it is paying to the nation in benefits. The only moral argument for retaining aa these days is if it is changed from race and sex to material condition and limited to educational opportunities.

Oh, I knew what I was posting and I understand what you're pointing out and realize that it's the best and first brink in the wall against Citizens United. I'm simply making a second point.

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

Anyway you look at it, it's a double vote by an individual unless the person representing the corporations fails to vote as an individual voter.

If I'm reading your post accurately, you just fell into the trap. The issue isn't duplicate votes, but that is one corporations are prepared to fight.

With all due respect, the issue is a simple one: does the constitution give the right to vote to bloodless entities and the answer is "No." That camel's nose first got under the tent when the railroad men writing the 14th Amendment excised "natural born" from the original phrase "natural born persons" throughout the amendment. These same men later induced a court clerk to misrepresent SCOUTUS' decision in the notes of the Santa Clara case (1880s).

More recently, nutball hero John Roberts (the bag man between Baker and Rehnquist in 2000) led a gaggle of bought-and-paid-for nutballs in black robes to open the door to that right with their decision in CITIZENS UNITED. Lest some halfwit believe me to be one of the fake liberal fascists passing for liberal today, KELO is an equal legal abomination from the freakshow side of the court.

Neither party has demonstrated as much substantive interest in constitutional limits as in constitutional imperatives since affirmative action was accepted. Like Obamacare, corporations were behind it, but others got the blame. Unlike Obamacare, there were legitimate moral and legal cases for suspending the constitution for maybe twenty years to support fully enfranchising women and racial minorities previously disenfranchised by law. At this point aa is well past its prime, causing more problems than it is paying to the nation in benefits. The only moral argument for retaining aa these days is if it is changed from race and sex to material condition and limited to educational opportunities.

Oh, I knew what I was posting and I understand what you're pointing out and realize that it's the best and first brink in the wall against Citizens United. I'm simply making a second point.

Thanks for clarifying.

The 'two votes' issue is a strawman that can't be let stand. First because it isn't two votes for one person (the person and the bloodless entity are in fact separate legal parties), and second because it changes the subject to a discussion and a legal case corporations can't lose.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

The good news is that anyone can form a corporation.

<nudge> <nudge>

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Anyway you look at it, it's a double vote by an individual unless the person representing the corporations fails to vote as an individual voter.

Did you miss the non resident portion of the applicable law? If they are not residents, they can't vote.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Anyway you look at it, it's a double vote by an individual unless the person representing the corporations fails to vote as an individual voter.

If I'm reading your post accurately, you just fell into the trap. The issue isn't duplicate votes, but that is one corporations are prepared to fight.

With all due respect, the issue is a simple one: does the constitution give the right to vote to bloodless entities and the answer is "No." That camel's nose first got under the tent when the railroad men writing the 14th Amendment excised "natural born" from the original phrase "natural born persons" throughout the amendment. These same men later induced a court clerk to misrepresent SCOUTUS' decision in the notes of the Santa Clara case (1880s).

More recently, nutball hero John Roberts (the bag man between Baker and Rehnquist in 2000) led a gaggle of bought-and-paid-for nutballs in black robes to open the door to that right with their decision in CITIZENS UNITED. Lest some halfwit believe me to be one of the fake liberal fascists passing for liberal today, KELO is an equal legal abomination from the freakshow side of the court.

Neither party has demonstrated as much substantive interest in constitutional limits as in constitutional imperatives since affirmative action was accepted. Like Obamacare, corporations were behind it, but others got the blame. Unlike Obamacare, there were legitimate moral and legal cases for suspending the constitution for maybe twenty years to support fully enfranchising women and racial minorities previously disenfranchised by law. At this point aa is well past its prime, causing more problems than it is paying to the nation in benefits. The only moral argument for retaining aa these days is if it is changed from race and sex to material condition and limited to educational opportunities.

This is not a constitutional issue, so stop trying to base your argument on the constitution. The issue is should any entity that pays taxes be able to vote on said taxes, not should corporations be able to vote. You could easily solve this problem by not forcing corporations to pay taxes, but your brain would probably die if you untwisted it that much.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Then make unions and governments "people" under the law and let them vote also.

Under that law, if a union owns property they would get a vote, and government are not taxed. Thanks for proving you don't think.

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

Anyway you look at it, it's a double vote by an individual unless the person representing the corporations fails to vote as an individual voter.

If I'm reading your post accurately, you just fell into the trap. The issue isn't duplicate votes, but that is one corporations are prepared to fight.

With all due respect, the issue is a simple one: does the constitution give the right to vote to bloodless entities and the answer is "No." That camel's nose first got under the tent when the railroad men writing the 14th Amendment excised "natural born" from the original phrase "natural born persons" throughout the amendment. These same men later induced a court clerk to misrepresent SCOUTUS' decision in the notes of the Santa Clara case (1880s).

More recently, nutball hero John Roberts (the bag man between Baker and Rehnquist in 2000) led a gaggle of bought-and-paid-for nutballs in black robes to open the door to that right with their decision in CITIZENS UNITED. Lest some halfwit believe me to be one of the fake liberal fascists passing for liberal today, KELO is an equal legal abomination from the freakshow side of the court.

Neither party has demonstrated as much substantive interest in constitutional limits as in constitutional imperatives since affirmative action was accepted. Like Obamacare, corporations were behind it, but others got the blame. Unlike Obamacare, there were legitimate moral and legal cases for suspending the constitution for maybe twenty years to support fully enfranchising women and racial minorities previously disenfranchised by law. At this point aa is well past its prime, causing more problems than it is paying to the nation in benefits. The only moral argument for retaining aa these days is if it is changed from race and sex to material condition and limited to educational opportunities.

This is not a constitutional issue, so stop trying to base your argument on the constitution. The issue is should any entity that pays taxes be able to vote on said taxes, not should corporations be able to vote. You could easily solve this problem by not forcing corporations to pay taxes, but your brain would probably die if you untwisted it that much.

To recap: Voting rights for bloodless entities is clearly - and SOLELY - a Constitutional issue. Nothing in the Constitution contemplates voting rights for bloodless entities. Not. Anything.

It took the filthy degenerate scum of the earth to raise the issue to its current status. Most recently, it was the Bush League cocksucker John Roberts who elevated corporations' rights to limitless political propaganda.

Now we're down to seeing whether the lowlife scum of the earth win and America loses, or if there are enough rational people remaining to somehow overcome Democrats and Republicans legislative and judicial shilling for corporations and roll back corporate hegemony over the United States of America.