this post was submitted on 01 Jun 2026

228 points (99.1% liked)

politics

29931 readers

1809 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

outrageousmatter@lemmy.world

aidan@lemmy.world

jordanlund@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

Theonetheycall1845@lemmy.world

JuBe@lemmy.world

Lasherz12@lemmy.world

228

‘Logical conclusion’ of Citizens United as Delaware judge lets corporations vote in local elections (www.commondreams.org)

submitted 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago) by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

31 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Delaware is home to more corporations than people. Human people, that is, as under longstanding state law and the US Supreme Court’s infamous 2010 ruling, corporations are people, too.

A judge in Delaware—a state with more registered business entities than people—ruled Monday in favor of a small town that allows corporations to vote in local elections.

Delaware Superior Court Judge Craig Karsnitz ruled that the town of Fenwick Island, population 400, did not violate the state Constitution by permitting business entities—which make up 12% of the town’s “population”—to vote in municipal elections, as case plaintiff the ACLU of Delaware had claimed.

“What is a ‘person?’ When one cuts to the heart of this case, that is the question,” Karsnitz wrote to open his 20-page ruling.

top 31 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] nonentity@sh.itjust.works 5 points 11 hours ago

Financial obesity is an existential threat to any society that tolerates it, and needs to cease being celebrated, rewarded, and positioned as an aspirational goal.

Corporations are the only ‘persons’ which should be subjected to capital punishment, but billionaires should be euthanised through taxation.

[–] cinoreus@lemmy.world 8 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

For someone who doesn't live in America, Delaware sounds like a perfect place for cyberpunk dystopia

[–] dejected_warp_core@lemmy.world 2 points 12 hours ago

From a governance standpoint, yes, I agree. However, the state as a whole is very rural and quite picturesque. There's a lot of beautiful forested wilderness there and it enjoys a nice bit of shoreline too. Not exactly evocative of Gibson's Sprawl.

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 61 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago) (2 children)

This is insane:

“According to the law, a person is anyone or anything that can initiate and be subject to legal proceedings.

This is turning things totally on it's head. Companies are defined as legal persons exactly so they can be sued, and are responsible to the law. Not the other way around.

By this standard a company that doesn't make money should also have the right to social welfare, and when it gets old to receive a pension.

This is absolute madness, and in no way within what it means to be a legal person in any civilized country.
A legal person does not have for instance citizenship, a legal person does not have human rights, and maybe most importantly a legal person cannot go to jail. Only REAL people can do those things.
The reason it's called a "legal" person is exactly because it is not a REAL person, and for instance doesn't have a right to vote, because a legal person is not a citizen.

USA is such a shitty and insane country it's impossible to put into a few words exactly how bad it is.

[–] wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 5 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

Yeah, it's definitely putting the cart before the horse.

The law defines who can initiate and be subject to legal proceedings, and somewhere in there there's gotta be the assumption that you must be a person to do so.

So now they're saying that anyone who can do those things must be a person. It's circular reasoning.

If we make a law that says cats can now be subject to or initiate legal proceedings, does that make them a person? Or do we need a law that grants them personhood status in order to be subject to or initiate legal proceedings?

Also, this is kind of silly: "a person is anyone or anything that..." (emphasis added).

They're literally saying right there that a THING can be a person...

If my computer can initiate legal proceedings, does that make it a person?

How can you bar AI agents from initiating legal proceedings on the grounds that it's not a person, if the deciding factor that determines whether it's a person is whether it's capable of initiating legal proceedings?

This is going to open up so many cans of worms...

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 3 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

They’re literally saying right there that a THING can be a person…

Good point. Also an interesting example with the AI.
I wouldn't be surprised if AI will son be used to initiate legal proceedings, or directly start lawsuits, maybe even see them through.
By that logic an AI should also be able to vote, and so would any computer that can run an AI.

[–] wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 3 points 10 hours ago

So many cans of worms.

They should've regulated it in 2021 but nooo "it'll hamper innovation" they said...

[–] zonklezoop@lemmy.zip 16 points 22 hours ago (2 children)

The only thing I appreciated in the article was that the judge said that a fetus wasn't a person.

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 10 points 22 hours ago

Yes, until the next case where it is. 🤡

[–] londos@lemmy.world 2 points 16 hours ago

Clearly the fetus should incorporate

[–] theacharnian@lemmy.ca 20 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

If money is speech why can't you pay rent with poem?

[+] wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz -6 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

If apple is fruit why can't you make applesauce with orange?

[–] theacharnian@lemmy.ca 4 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago) (1 children)

Good point. Let's go again. If money is speech, then why isn't the US Federal Reserve considered to be the most prolific writer/speaker of all time? And if money is legal tender, does that mean that some kinds of speech have within them the obligation of others to listen?

[–] wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 1 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago) (1 children)

I mean I totally agree that money isn't speech and that's a bullshit ruling.

Just pointing out that A→B ≠ B→A. That's a very fundamental point of logic upon which nearly all formal logic rests.

Edit: wow whoever downvoted this needs to go back to school.

[–] theacharnian@lemmy.ca 2 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

Yes absolutely.

It is however not always clear-cut that "A is B" maps to A–>B as opposed to A<–>B. We do say "the square root of nine is three", "a widow is a woman whose husband died" and "the current prime minister of Canada is Mark Carney".

[–] wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 1 points 13 hours ago

It is clear-cut though, and that's why there's a separate construct for A←→B. It's the logical reduction of "A→B U B→A".

If those were the same thing then it wouldn't need a separate construct.

The reason "affirming the consequent" and "negating the antecedent" are formal fallacies is precisely because A→B does not imply B→A.

If the premise is A←→B, then those fallacies don't apply because they're biconditionals; either A or B can be the consequent or the antecedent.

"All apples are fruits" is a different kind of statement than "All widows have lost a husband." Because "Apple → Fruit" but "Widow ←→ Lost a husband."

And honestly that's a bad example, because truly a man could lose his husband and he would be a widower, so honestly that one's not even a biconditional. But most cases of equivalence and definitions are biconditionals, unless it's merely mentioning a category or precondition that is not exclusive to the thing in question.

Formal logic is quite thorough about this kind of stuff, so if there's ever a valid and sound deductive argument, it always holds true in every case. If it doesn't, then by definition it's either invalid, unsound, or not a deductive argument. Because a deductive argument that is both valid and sound always holds true.

[–] Stern@lemmy.world 34 points 22 hours ago (2 children)

So if I start up a thousand businesses in town I can make myself mayor?

[–] wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 4 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago)

Don't even have to, just make a thousand AI agents. If they can initiate legal proceedings, then they're people.

If someone says "They can't initiate legal proceedings, because they're not people," then just tell them "But they are people, because they can initiate legal proceedings."

This is going to be fun...

ETA: Basically the only two possible conclusions reduce to "They're not people, so therefore they're not people" and "They're people, so therefore they're people."

These are simultaneously contradictory and equally valid from a logical standpoint. That's why the ruling is so absurd. The justification itself is logically invalid, because it creates this absurdity.

I believe the main fallacy it commits is "circular reasoning," but there may be others.

[–] mushroommunk@lemmy.today 19 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

They have to own land according to the ruling. So you also have to sell each of them a square inch off the back of your lot. (I've seen nothing about the land needing to be buildable or habitable). IANAL though

[–] wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 4 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

Does that mean human beings who don't own property are no longer classified as legal people anymore?

[–] athatet@lemmy.zip 1 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

Just how the founding fathers would have wanted it.

[–] wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 1 points 10 hours ago

Basically Athenian democracy in a nutshell.

Oh, and Roman politics as well

[–] pticrix@lemmy.ca 9 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago) (2 children)

Does this mean that a company that outcompetes another into dissolving can be accused of manslaughter?

[–] krashmo@lemmy.world 14 points 16 hours ago

It means all kinds of contradictory nonsense. The only thing we can be sure of is that corporations will be considered people when it benefits the rich and considered separate legal entities when it doesn't.

[–] wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 3 points 15 hours ago

Oh yeah, can corporations be thrown in prison when they commit crimes now?

[–] ClassStruggle@lemmy.ml 14 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

SCOTUS has sided with businesses regarding personhood since the 14th amendment was passed. Citizens United wasn't an isolated incident.

[–] Fredselfish@lemmy.world 1 points 18 hours ago

Yeah Leeja Miller went over this on her channel. Apparently one of the writers of the 14th lied and told the courts that they always was thinking of businesses when they wrote the amendment. Of course he was the only survivoring member at the time so no one could dispute him. All goes back to that court case. Its fucked always has been.

[–] Linktank@lemmy.today 27 points 22 hours ago

This timeline is so stupid it hurts.

[–] whotookkarl@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 16 hours ago

This is the same craziness sovereign citizens try to pass off in court as legal justification for whatever actions they took, but actually accepted by a just as unhinged judge

[–] Lasherz12@lemmy.world 3 points 19 hours ago

Jim Crow laws against working class next Delaware? Unironically the real great replacement theory is just rich fucks signing a stack of forms.

[–] Brkdncr@lemmy.world 1 points 16 hours ago

Can I marry a corporation?